PROCEEDINGS 


THE   COURT    OF   BISHOPS, 


ASSKMBI.KI)    I'OIl 


THE    TRIAL 


BISHOP  OF  NEW  JEESEY. 


BX5960 

P63A7 


NEW  YORK: 
STANFORD    AND    SWORDS,    137,    BROADWAY 

1852. 


^^^  OF  PBI,.?:^ 


Logical  ^i^\J^ 


THE  EECOED  ^-^  ''■  ""'^ 


Iprffcecbmgs  oi  t\t  €mxt  d  ^isfjop, 


ASSEMBLED  FOB  THE  TRIAL    OF 


THE  RT.  REV.  GEORGE  WASHINGTON  DOANE,  D.  D.,  LL.  D., 

BISHOP    OF    NEW    JERSEY, 


A  PRESENTMENT 


THE  RT.   REV.   WILLIAM  MEADE,  D.  D., 

BISHOP    OF    VIRGINIA, 

THE  RT.  REV.   CHARLES  PETTIT  McILVAINE,  D.D., 

BISHOP    OF    OHIO,     AND 

THE   RT.   REV.   GEORGE   BURGESS,   D.  D., 

BISHOP    OF    MAINE. 


NEW  YORK: 
STANFORD    AND    SWORDS,    137     BROADWAY. 

1852. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1852, 

By  Stanfoed  and  Swoeds, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


BiLLis  AND  Brothers, 
Printera  and  Stereotypers,  20  North  William  St.,  New  York. 


PROCEEDINGS,  ETC. 


lirst  gai. 

Camden,  New  Jersey,   October  7,  1852. ) 
10  o'clocl;  A.  M.  ) 

This  being  the  day,  the  hour  and  the  place  designated  by  the 
Presiding  Bishop,  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  Canon  III. 
of  ISrt-i,  for  the  assembhng  of  the  Bishops  to  form  a  Court  for  the 
trial  of  the  Rt.  Eev.  George  Washington  Doane,  D.  D.,  LL.  D., 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  on  a  Presentment  made  by 
the  Rt.  Rev.  William  Meade,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Vir- 
ginia ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  Charles  Pettit  Mcllvaine,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the 
Diocese  of  Ohio,  and  the  Rt.  Rev.  George  Burgess,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of 
the  Diocese  of  Maine,  there  appeared  the  Rt.  Rev.  John  Henry 
Hopkins,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Yermont ;  the 
Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  Bosworth  Smith,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese 
of  Kentucky ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  Jackson  Kemper,  D.  D.,  Missionary 
Bishop  of  Wisconsin  and  Iowa ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  Samuel  Allen  Mc- 
Coskry,  D.  D.,  D.  C.  L.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Michigan  ;  the  Rt. 
Rev.  William  Heathcote  De  Lancey,  D.  D.,  D.  C.  L.,  Bishop  of  the 
Diocese  of  Western  New  York ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  William  Rollinson 
Whittingham,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Maryland ;  the  Rt. 
Rev.  Alfred  Lee,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Delaware ;  the  Rt. 
Rev.  John  Johns,  D.  D.,  Assistant  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Yirginia  ; 
the  Rt.  Rev.  Manton  Eastburn,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Mas- 
sachusetts ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  Carlton  Chase,  D.  D,,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese 
of  New  Hampshire  ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  Alonzo  Potter,  D.  D.,  LL.  D., 
Bishop  of  the  Diocose  of  Pennsylvania ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  George  Upfold, 
D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Indiana ;  the  Rt.  Rev.  William  Green^ 

36335e- 


(    2     ) 

D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Mississippi ;  tlie  Et.  Eev.  Francis 
Huger  Eutledge,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Florida,  together 
with  the  Bishops  making  the  Presentment,  and  the  Bishop  Ee- 
spondent. 


The  Meeting  was  opened  by  Morning  Prayer,  conducted  by  the 
Bishop  of  Vermont. 

At  the  conclusion  of  Morning  Prayer  all  persons  present,  with 
the  exception  of  the  Bishops,  retired. 

On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Maryland,  the  Bishop  of  Vermont 
(being  the  Senior  Bishop  present)  was  called  to  the  chair. 

On  motion,  the  Bishop  of  Florida  was  requested  to  act  as  Secre- 
tary, jJro  temjjore. 

The  Bishops  then  went  into  an  election  by  ballot  for  President 
of  the  Court ;  which  resulted  in  the  election  of  the  Bishop  of 
Vermont. 

An  election  was  next  made,  by  ballot,  of  a  Clerk ;  which  resulted 
in  the  election  of  the  Eev.  Jonathan  Mayhew  Wainwright,  D.  D., 
D.  C.  L.,  Secretary  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  Provisional  Bishop 
elect  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York. 

The  Clerk  was  authorized  to  appoint  an  Assistant,  subject  to  the 
approval  of  the  Court ;  whereupon  he  designated  the  Eev.  John 
Henry  Hopkins,  junr..  Deacon,  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York ;  who 
was  approved  by  the  Court. 

The  Bishop  of  Vermont  read  the  following  communication  : 

"  To  the  Court  of  Bis! tops  assembled  at  Camden,  New  Jersey^  on  the  1th 
of  OdoUr,  A.  D.  1852. 

"Eight  Eeveeend  and  Beloved  Brethren, 

"  We  are  assembled  on  an  occasion  which  is,  beyond  all  others, 
the  most  painful  and  afflicting  to  every  member  of  the  Church  of 
Christ,  and  especially  to  her  Chief  Pastors,  on  whom,  as  the  respon- 
sible agents,  the  task  of  discipline  depends,  in  its  highest  earthly 
form  of  administration.  And,  therefore,  it  seems  the  more  incumbent 
on  each  of  us,  not  to  cast  an  unequal  burden  on  the  rest,  by  shrinking 


(    3    ) 

from  his  own  share  of  this  unwelcome  task,  through  the  love  of 
ease,  or  dread  of  censure,  or  any  other  selfish  motive ;  but  to  come 
forward  in  our  place,  in  humble  and  firm  reliance  on  the  help  of 
God,  and  deliver  our  judgment  as  in  His  sight,  without  fear,  favour 
or  affection.  So  important,  in  the  primitive  ages,  was  the  perform- 
ance of  this  work,  that  a  punctual  attendance  on  the  Provincial 
Councils,  held  twice  a  year  for  the  purposes  of  discipline,  was  en- 
joined on  every  Bishop,  under  the  penalty  of  suspension  for  neglect. 
And  assuredly,  it  is  no  less  obligatory  on  us,  although  we  are  not 
liable  to  the  same  punishment  for  delinquency  by  any  express  Canon 
of  our  own ;  because  the  duty  resting  upon  us  is  precisely  the  same 
in  principle,  and  we  are  bound  to  perform  it  on  the  same  high 
grounds  of  regard  for  the  rights  of  an  accused  Brother,  of  respect 
for  the  privileges  of  our  own  ministerial  Order,  and  of  reverence  for 
the  majesty  of  those  sacred  laws  which  guard  the  purity  of  the 
priesthood  in  the  Church  of  God. 

"  Such,  then,  is  clearly  the  general  rule.  And  j^et,  like  all  other 
general  rules,  it  ought  to  have  its  exceptions,  and  when  any  of  those 
exceptions  can  be  pleaded,  a  Bishop  should  be  excused  from  his 
attendance  as  a  Member  of  the  Court.  The  party  accused  has  no 
right  of  challenge,  because  we  do  not  sit  here  as  jurymen,  but  as 
judges,  ex  officio  ;  and  hence,  like  the  House  of  Lords  in  England, 
or  the  Senators  in  the  United  States,  the  work  of  judgment  belongs 
to  our  very  Office,  and  no  other  men  can  be  called  on  to  discharge 
our  duty,  if  we  should  be  set  aside.  But  still,  even  as  judges,  it 
seems  reasonable  that  we  should  apply  to  ourselves  the  rules  which 
govern  in  the  case  of  other  judges,  who  are  forbidden  to  try  a  cause 
if  they  be  nearly  related  to  the  party,  or  have  any  personal  interest 
in  the  result,  or  even  if  they  have  been  previously  emploj^ed  as 
counsel  in  the  case,  since  these  are  all  admitted  reasons  for  doubt- 
ing their  impartiality.  I  presume,  therefore,  that  under  similar 
circumstances,  any  Bishop  would  be  justified  in  excepting  to  him- 
self, and  I  doubt  not  that  you  would  all  agree  to  decide  that  his 
excuse  would  be  satisfactory. 

"  There  is,  however,  another  ground  which  has  appeared  to  my 
mind  entitled  to  take  rank  with  these,  although  I  am  not  prepared 
to  say  that  I  can  claim  on  its  behalf  any  positive  precedent.  And 
it  is  on  this  that  I  rest  my  own  request  to  be  allowed  to  decline  the 
seat  of  judgment  on  the  present  occasion.  Some  twentv  years  ago, 
when  our  accused  brother  and  myself  were  Presbyters  in  the  Dio- 
cese of  Massachusetts,  there  was  a  serious  difficulty  between  us.     I 


(    4    ) 

liave  no  intention  to  enter  into  the  details  of  tlie  matter,  nor  do  I 
ask  jou  to  say  whether  he  or  I  were  in  the  wrong,  because  I  do  not 
stand  here  to  enter  the  slightest  complaint  against  him  on  account 
of  the  transaction,  nor  am  I  conscious  of  any  bias  whatever  as  re- 
gards the  present  case,  unless  it  be  that  of  sympathy  on  his  behalf? 
and  a  desire  that  his  course  may  be  vindicated  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  whole  Church,  after  due  investigation.  But  yet,  when  I  learned 
that  a  Presentment  had  been  made,  and  I  reflected  upon  the  duty 
which  I,  as  one  of  his  judges,  might  be  called  on  to  perform,  this 
old  and  almost  forgotten  difiiculty  rose  to  my  memory,  and  I  could 
not  feel  satisfied  that  I  should  be  acting  with  due  delicacy  and  con- 
sideration for  him,  if  I  did  not  decline  to  act  as  one  of  his  judges, 
so  far  as  my  own  individual  opinion  was  concerned  ;  and  thus  give 
him  the  benefit  of  the  right  of  challenge,  by  challenging  myself, 

"  On  this  ground,  therefore,  I  request  to  be  excused  from  attending 
the  Court  as  one  of  its  Members.  I  have  put  my  application  into 
writing,  in  order  that  it  may  appear  on  the  Eecord,  with  the  decision 
thereupon,  and  I  tender  it  in  person,  as  a  point  of  respect  towards 
the  Court,  and  as  a  proof  that  I  consider  it  the  solemn  duty  of  every 
Bishop  to  answer  to  his  name  on  the  canonical  summons  of  the 
Church,  unless  hindered  by  the  act  of  Providence ;  and  to  submit  the 
validity  of  his  excuse  for  withdrawing,  to  the  judgment  of  his 
Brethren. 

{Signed)  "John  H.  Hopkixs, 

"  Bisliop  of  VermonC 

Whereupon,  on  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  "Wisconsin  and  Iowa  it  was 

Ordered,  That  the  Bishop  of  Vermont  be  not  excused. 

The  Bishop  of  Mississippi,  on  behalf  of  the  Eespondent,  ex- 
pressed the  full  assent  and  wish  of  the  latter,  that  the  Bishop  of 
Vermont  should  be  a  Member  of  the  Court. 

The  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania  offered  the  following  Preamble  and 
Eesolution,  which  were  unanimously  adopted: 

The  Bishops  assembled  as  an  Ecclesiastical  Court  at  Camden,  New 
Jersey,  October  7,  1852,  cannot  meet  without  expressing  their  pro- 
found sensibility  at  the  deep  bereavement  which  the  Church  has 
very  recently  sustained  in  the  loss  of  three  of  her  oldest  and  most 
experienced  Bishops.  They  desire  to  record  their  affectionate 
veneration  for  their  memories,  with  their  lively  sense  of  the  afiliction 


(     o     ) 

wbicli  has  tlius  been  brought  upon  their  respective  dioceses  and 
families,  and  of  the  pointed  and  most  impressive  admonition  thus 
addressed  by  Providence  to  each  one  of  their  surviving  Brethren  in 
the  Episcopate,  urging  them  to  greater  zeal  and  devotion  in  the  dis- 
charge of  their  private  and  public  duties. 

Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  this  Minute  be  transmitted  to  each  of 
the  afflicted  families,  with  assurances  of  the  sympathy  felt  for  them 
by  the  members  of  this  body. 

On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Maryland,  it  was 

Ordered,  That  when  this  Court  adjourns,  it  will  adjourn  to  meet 
to-morrow  morning,  at  11  o'clock,  A.  m.,  in  Burlington,  in  the  City 
Hall.  Pending  the  discussion  previous  to  the  adoption  of  this  order, 
the  following  communication  was  read : 

"The  undersigned  respectfully,  but  earnestly,  requests,  that  the 
Court  of  Bishops  will  adjourn  to  Burlington:  on  the  ground  that 
his  witnesses  are,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  there ;  and  that  they 
are  persons,  whose  duties  and  occupations  require  them  to  be  there, 
so  that  he  would  be  deprived  of  the  testimony  of  many  of  them, 
and  subjected  to  great  expense,  in  regard  to  such  as  may  attend. 
lie  represents,  also,  the  great  personal  inconvenience,  to  himself,  of 
being  withdrawn  from  his  home ;  his  family  being  in  affliction,  and 
requiring  his  presence.  And  he  submits,  that,  as  his  transactions 
were  there,  he  may  claim  to  be  tried  in  their  presence,  who,  for 
twenty  years,  have  known  his  daily  life. 

"  He  farther  adds,  that  convenient  accommodations  will  be  pro- 
vided, for  the  Court ;  and,  that  invitations,  to  all  its  members,  have 
been  given,  by  families  residing  in  Burlington,  who  will  cheerfully 
and  cordially  receive  and  entertain  them. 

{S(rjyied)  "  G.  W.   DO-iNE, 

"Bishop  of  New  Jersey. 
«  Camden,  October  7,  1852." 

The  following  communication,  addressed  to  the  Presiding  Bishop 
in  the  Court,  was  read : 

"New  Jersey,  Ocfoi^r  7,  1852. 
"  To  the  Right  Reverend,  The  Presiding  Bishoi^,  in  the  Court  assembled 

for'  the  trial  of  Bishop  Doane. 
"Right  Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

"  The  Committee  appointed  by  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  to 
appear  before  you,  touching  the  presentment  and  trial  of  Bishop 


(     6     ) 

Doane,  rcspectfally  ask,  that  before  any  action  shall  be  liad,  they  be 
allowed  to  read  the  '  written  representation  on  behalf  of  that  Diocese, 
setting  forth  its  legal  and  canonical  position  and  rights,'  which  they 
have  prepared.     The  Convention  of  New  Jersey  asks  to  be  heard. 
{Signed)  ''Saml.  L.  Southard, 

"  Chairman. 
"  By  order  of  the  Committee." 

On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Michigan,  it  was 

Ordered,  That  the  above  communication  be  laid  upon  the  table  for 
consideration  to-morrow. 

On  motion,  the  Court  adjourned. 


Burlington,  October  8,  1852.  \ 
11  o'clock,  A.  M.  3 

The  Court  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  as  yesterday;  with  the  exception  of  the  Bishop  of 
Mississippi. 

The  Session  was  opened  with  the  reading  of  the  Litany,  and 
other  prayers,  by  the  Bishop  of  Kentucky. 

The  Minutes  of  the  meeting  of  yesterday  were  read,  and,  after 
amendment,  were  ajDproved. 

The  communication  from  a  Committee  of  the  Diocese  of  Kew 
Jersey  was  called  up ;  Avhen  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York 
moved  the  following  order  : 

Ordered,  That  the  request  of  the  Committee  of  the  Diocese  of 
New  Jersey  be  complied  with. 

Whereupon,  the  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania  offered,  as' a  substitute, 
the  following: 

Whereas,  Any  question  touching  the  rights  and  interests  of  the 
Diocese  of  New  Jersey  can,  with  more  propriety,  be  entertained  at  a 
later  stage  of  these  proceedings,  and  any  facts  which  it  has  to  com- 
municate can  then  be  received  without  irregularity :  therefore. 


(    7    ) 
Ordered,  That  tlie  request  be  not  granted. 

The  Ayes  and  Noes  being  called  for,  the  substitute  was  adopted 
bv  the  following  vote  : 

Ayes:  The  Bishops  of  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Delaware,  Assistant 
of  Virginia,  Massachusetts,  Pennsjdvania,  and  Florida: — 7. 

Noes :  The  Bishops  of  Wisconsin  and  Iowa,  Michigan,  Western 
New  York,  Maryland,  New  Hampshire,  and  Indiana : — Q. 

The  Bishop  of  Western  New  York  offered  the  following  order : 

Ordered,  That  when  the  Presentment  to  be  tried  shall  have  been 
read,  before  proceeding  farther,  the  Committee  of  the  Diocese  of 
New  Jersey  be  allowed  to  read  before  the  Court  the  written  repre- 
'sentation  on  behalf  of  the  Diocese,  setting  forth  its  legal  and  canoni- 
cal riglits,  which  they  have  prepared. 

The  Ayes  and  Noes  being  called  for,  the  Order  was  adopted  by 
the  following  vote : 

Aijes :  The  Bishops  of  Wisconsin  and  Iowa,  Michigan,  Western 
New  York,  Maryland,  New  Ilampshire,  Indiana,  and  Florida : — 7. 

Noes :  The  Bishops  of  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Delaware,  Assistant  of 
Virginia,  Massachusetts,  and  Pennsylvania: — 6. 

The  Bishop  of  Mississippi,  having  been  prevented  from  attending 
earlier  by  disappointment  in  regard  to  a  conveyance,  appeared  and 
took  his  seat. 

Ordered,  That,  when  this  Court  adjourns,  it  will  adjourn  to  meet 
to-morrow  morning  at  half-past  ten  o'clock. 

The  Court  then  adjourned. 


Burlington,  October  9,  1852.  ^ 
10^  o'clock,  A.  M.  ) 

The  Court  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  as  yesterday. 

The  Session  was  opened  with  the  Litany  and  prayers,  by  the 
President. 

The  Minutes  of  yesterday  were  read  and  approved. 


(    8    ) 

The  Bishop  Respondent  gave  notice  that,  at  the  proper  time,  he 
shall  make  request  that  the  doors  of  the  Court  be  opened  to  the 
public. 

On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Maryland, 

Ordered,  That  a  Committee  be  appointed  to  ascertain  and  report 
whether  this  Court  is  duly  constituted  in  conformity  with  the  Canon. 

The  President  appointed  the  Bishops  of  Michigan,  Delaware,  and 
New  Hampshire  as  the  Committee. 

Whereupon,  the  Committee  retired,  and  subsequently  offered  the 
following  Report : 

"  The  Committee  appointed  to  ascertain  whether  the  provisions 
of  the  Canon,  under  which  the  Court  has  been  summoned,  have- 
been  complied  with,  beg  leave  to  report : — 

"That,  owing  to  the  death  of  the  Presiding  Bishop,  they  have  no 
farther  evidence  before  them  than  is  already  in  the  possession  of 
the  Court ;  and  ask  to  be  discharged. 

{Signed)        "  Saml.  A,  McCoskry. 
"A.  Lee. 
"Caelton  Chase." 

On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Michigan, 
Ordered,  That  the  Committee  be  discharged. 

On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York, 

Ordered,  That  the  Presenting  Bishops  and  the  Bishop  Respondent 
be  asked  whether  they  are  ready  to  proceed  to  the  trial. 

W^hereupon,  the  Presenting  Bishops  replied  that  they  are  ready. 

The  Bishop  Respondent  replied  that  he  is  ready  to  hear  the 
Presentment  read. 

The  Bishop  of  Maryland  asked  leave  to  place  on  the  record  the 
following  statement ;  and  it  was 

Ordered,  That  leave  be  granted. 

"  The  undersigned,  dissenting  from  the  order  of  the  Court  to  call 
on  the  Presenting  Bishops  and  the  Bishop  Respondent,  in  order  to 
proceeding  with  the  trial,  desires  to  put  on  record,  before  proceeding 
to  the  trial  of  the  Presentment  now  just  read,  his  opinion  and  belief 
that,  by  reason  of  sundry  material  informalities  in  the  call  of  this 
Court,  and,  more  especially,  by  reason  of  the  entire  absence  of  any 


(    9    ) 

evidence  that  the  Canon  has  been  duly  and  truly  observed  in  the 
call  of  this  Court,  the  Bishops  now  assembled  are  incompetent  to 
proceed  to  the  trial  of  the  Presentment,  and  that  whatever  may 
be  done  by  them  in  the  premises  will  be  irregular,  null,  void,  and 
of  no  consequence. 

(Signed)        "  William  Eollinson  Whittingham, 

"Bishop  of  Maryland. 
"  BuRLiNGTOX,  JVew  Jerseij,  Oct.  9th,  1852." 

The  Presenting  Bishops  produced  their  Presentment,  which  was 
read  by  the  Clerk,  as  follows : 

"  To  the  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 

of  America. 
"  The  undersigned,  that  is  to  say,  the  Et.  Eev.  William  Meade, 
D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  said  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Virginia ;  the 
Et.  Eev.  Charles  Pettit  Mcllvaine,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  said  Church 
in  the  Diocese  of  Ohio ;  and  the  Et.  Eev.  George  Burgess,  Bishop 
of  the  said  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Maine ;  having  had  complaint 
made  to  us  by  four  respectable  laymen  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  all  of  whom  are  Commu- 
nicants and  Vestrymen  of  their  respective  parishes,  touching 
the  conduct  of  the  Et.  Eev.  George  Washington  Doane,  D.  D., 
Bishop  of  the  said  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  and 
having  examined  into  the  same,  with  the  evidence  which  has  been 
laid  before  us,  in  virtue  of  the  authority  reposed  in  us  by  the  Canons 
of  the  said  Church,  do  present  to  our  Brother  Bishops,  the  said 
George  Washington  Doane,  as  guilty  of  crime  and  immorality,  in 
the  matters  and  things  hereinafter  more  particularly  set  forth,  there- 
by setting  an  evil  and  pernicious  example  to  the  Clergy  and  Laity 
of  the  said  Church,  to  the  great  and  grievous  injury  of  the  said 
Church,  and  in  violation  of  his  high  duties  as  Bishop  in  the  same, 
and  of  the  solemn  vows  which  he  pronounced  at  his  consecration ; 
and  we  do  solemnly  demand  a  trial  of  the  said  George  Washington 
Doane,  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  the  Canons  of  the  General  Con- 
vention of  the  said  Church,  in  such  case  made  and  provided. 

"Specification  1.  That  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  Bishop  as 
aforesaid,  during  the  whole  or  a  very  large  part  of  the  period  in  which 
he  has  held  and  exercised  his  said  office  of  Bishop,  has  habitually 
incurred  numerous  and  large  debts,  far  beyond  any  actual  or  prob- 
able means  possessed  or  reasonably  anticipated  by  him,  of  ever 


(    10    ) 

repaying  said  debts  ;  tlae  aggregate  of  said  debts  being  not  less  tban 
two  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  dollars,  and  probably  amounting 
to  three  hundred  thousand  dollars,  at  the  date  of  his  assignment  in 
March,  1849,  when  the  value  of  the  entire  property  and  estate  of 
the  said  George  W.  Doane,  according  to  a  valuation  made  by  him- 
self under  oath,  did  not  amount  to  more  than  a  comparatively  small 
part  of  the  debts  so  actually  incurred ;  a  large  amount  of  these  debts, 
viz.,  the  sum  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  being  a  lien  upon 
the  real  estate  held  by  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  which  lien 
largely  exceeded  the  actual  value  of  the  said  real  estate,  while  the 
only  means  possessed  by  him  for  the  payment  of  about  two  hundred 
thousand  dollars  was  his  personal  property,  which,  according  to  a 
valuation  thereof  made  by  him,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  under 
oath,  amounted  only  to  the  sum  of  seventeen  thousand  four  hundred 
and  eighteen  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 

"  Specification  2.  That  he,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  Bishop 
as  aforesaid,  in  a  pamphlet,  printed  and  published  in  February, 
1852,  entitled  '  The  Protest  and  Appeal  of  George  Washington 
Doane,  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,'  etc.,  in  answer  to  certain  allegations 
concerning  the  large  amount  of  his  debts,  and  the  inadequacy  of  his 
means  to  the  discharge  of  the  same,  professes  and  declares,  that  the 
money  so  borrowed  and  the  debts  so  incurred  by  him,  were  borrowed 
and  incurred  '  in  his  venture  for  Christian  education  in  the  two 
institutions'  of  St.  Mary's  Hall  and  Burlington  College,  and  thus 
in  the  cause  and  service  of  God :  whereas  in  truth  not  only  could 
the  appropriation  of  moneys  so  obtained  to  the  establishment  and 
support  of  those  institutions  constitute  no  proper  or  sufficient  justi- 
fication of  acts  so  placing  in  jeopardy  the  property  of  others,  to  the 
great  injury  of  the  cause  of  Religion  ;  but  the  said  assertion  is  with- 
out foundation  in  fact,  as  all  the  sums  shown  to  have  been  expended 
on  or  about  such  institutions  would  not  equal  a  moiety  of  said 
debts. 

"  Specification  8.  That  on  or  about  the  80th  of  April,  1846,  the 
said  George  W.  Doane,  Bishop  as  aforesaid,  did  present  a  subscrip- 
tion paper  for  the  building  of  a  new  church  in  Burlington  to  Horace 
Binney,  Esq.,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  nameof  said  Binney 
to  said  paper,  and  after  said  Binney  had  refused  to  said  George  "W. 
Doane,  to  sign  his  name  or  to  allow  his  name  to  be  signed  to  said 
paper,  as  promising  to  pay  any  money  to  the  said  object,  he,  the  said 


(  11  ) 

George  W.  Doane,  in  th'e  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  did,  without  tlie 
knowledge  of  said  Binney,  write  the  name  of  said  Binney  on  said 
jiaper  as  the  subscriber  of  one  thousand  dollars,  and  that  said  George 
W.  Doane  presented  or  caused  to  be  presented  said  paper,  with 
said  name  thereon,  to  sundry  persons  for  their  subscriptions. 

"  Specification  4.  That  he,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  after 
writing  the  name  of  said  Binney  as  aforesaid,  and  obtaining  sub- 
scriptions subsequently  to  the  amount  of  more  than  thirteen  thousand 
dollars  for  the  building  of  said  church,  did,  on  the  28th  day  of  May, 
1847,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  write  in  a  letter  to  Thos,  Mil- 
nor.  Secretary  of  the  Vestry  of  St.  Mary's  Church,  Burlington,  the 
following  statement,  viz. :  '  Let  me  here  say,  that  in  procuring  a 
subscription  of  more  than  $13,000  no  man  or  woman  put  in  a  single 
word  of  condition  or  the  slightest  claim  for  equivalent,  unless  Mr. 
Binney  so  makes  out  his  case;'  which  statement  was  untrue  in 
this,  namely,  that  several  of  the  subscriptions  which  made  up  the 
said  amount  were  conditional,  and  were  known  so  to  be  by  the  said 
George  W.  Doane  at  the  time  of  writing  said  letter. 

"  Specification  5.  That,  at  various  times  during  the  years  1846, 
1847  and  1848,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  the  said  George  "W. 
Doane,  then  being  Bishop  as  aforesaid,  by  false  assertions  and  pre- 
tences, and  under  solemn  assurances  of  repayment  and  of  security 
against  all  loss,  prevailed  upon  Michael  Hayes,  a  citizen  of  the  county 
of  Burlington,  to  endorse  notes  to  a  large  amount ;  and  having  pro- 
cured from  said  Ilaj'-es  several  of  such  endorsements  to  notes  with- 
out date,  thereby  preventing  said  Hayes  from  identifying  said  notes 
when  they  fell  due,  and  falsely  representing  to  said  Hayes  the  amount 
of  the  responsibilities  which  he,  the  said  Hayes,  had  incurred,  the 
said  George  W.  Doane  procured  from  said  Hayes  divers  other 
additional  notes,  securities,  or  endorsements,  upon  the  false  pretext 
and  under  the  false  representation  that  such  additional  notes,  securi- 
ties or  endorsements  were  required  and  should  be  used  merely  in 
renewal  of  the  other  previous  notes  or  securities,  whereon  said 
Hayes  was  then  responsible,  and  then  about  to  come  to  maturity, 
and  that  no  increase  of  previous  responsibility  would  be  incurred  ; 
and  having  induced  and  prevailed  upon  said  Hayes  to  give  such 
additional  endorsements,  did,  in  violation  of  said  promises  and 
assurances  and  in  fraud  of  said  Hayes,  fail  and  omit  to  apply  such 
additional  notes,  or  some  of  them,  to  the  purposes  for  which  they 


(    12    ) 

•were  given,  and  on  the  contrary  did  employ  tliem  for  the  purpose 
of  raising  more  money,  thus  increasing  ultimately  the  responsibili- 
ties of  said  Hayes  nearly  threefold,  without  his  knowledge  or 
consent. 

"  Specification  6.  That  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  Bishop  as 
aforesaid,  in  the  year  1848,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  falsely 
representing,  by  himself  and  his  authorized  agents,  that  if  he  could 
obtain  a  loan  of  fifty  thousand  dollars,  it  would  enable  him  to 
relieve  himself  from,  and  to  pay  the  whole  of  his  floating  debt,  and 
that  he  would  so  appropriate  said  money,  applied  to  Michael  Hayes 
aforesaid,  for  a  subscription  of  two  thousand  dollars  to  said  loan, 
and  procured  the  same,  and  afterwards  a  farther  subscription  of  one 
thousand  dollars,  on  the  positive  assurance  that,  from  said  fund  thus 
procured  on  loan,  the  entire  debt  of  said  Hayes  by  his  endorse- 
ments should  be  paid,  and  he  exonerated  from  all  responsibility ;  and 
having  thus  prevailed  upon  said  Hayes  to  pay  said  amount  of  three 
thousand  dollars,  he,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  regardless  of  said 
promise  and  assurance,  did  neglect  and  omit  to  apply  any  portion 
of  said  money  so  obtained  to  the  liquidation  or  payment  of  the 
debt  due  to  said  Hayes,  or  to  the  exoneration  of  said  Hayes  from 
his  responsibilities  as  endorser  as  aforesaid. 

"  Specification  7.  That  he,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  Bishop 
as  aforesaid,  so  being  indebted  on  the  promissory  notes  so  endorsed, 
as  in  the  preceding  specifications,  by  said  Michael  Hayes,  in  or 
about  the  month  of  August,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  forty-nine,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  pro- 
cured and  consented  that  his  wife,  Mrs.  Eliza  G.  Doane,  should 
enter  into  an  agreement  with  said  Michael  Hayes,  by  which  it  was 
in  substance  agreed,  that  he  the  said  Hayes  should  compromise 
upon  such  terms  as  he  could,  with  the  holders  of  such  notes,  and 
should  be  repaid  to  the  extent  of  a  moiety  of  what  he  should  thus 
pay,  in  annual  instalments  of  $1000  each,  with  interest,  out  of 
the  income  payable  to  the  said  Eliza  G.  Doane  by  the  Trustees  of 
her  late  husband  in  Boston;  and  should  for  that  purpose  receive  a 
power  of  attorney  from  said  Eliza  G.  Doane,  authorizing  and  direct- 
ing said  Trustees  to  make  such  payments;  and  said  compromise 
having  been  effected,  and  said  power  of  attorney  executed  and 
delivered,  said  George  W.  Doane  requested  said  Hayes  not  to  send 
said  power  to  Boston,  promising  that  he  would  himself  pay  said 


(    13    ) 

annual  instalments  of  $1000  and  interest;  but  said  George  W. 
Doane,  Bishop  as  aforesaid,  having  paid  the  first  of  said  instalments, 
which  fell  due  in  January,  1850,  has  not  paid  the  second  or  any 
part  thereof;  but  on  the  contrary,  when  told  by  said  Hayes  that  he 
would  complain  to  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese,  he,  the  said 
George  W.  Doane,  answered  said  Hayes,  that  if  he  took  that  course 
he  would  get  nothing,' for  that  he,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  would 
put  himself  on  his  defence ;  and  said  Hayes,  on  sending  his  said 
power  to  Boston,  has  not  been  able  to  procure  any  other  or  further 
payment  under  said  agreement,  on  the  ground  that  another  party, 
a  son  of  said  Eliza  G.  Doane  by  her  former  husband,  had  presented 
an  order  from  her,  under  which  he  claimed  payment  from  said 
Trustees  of  the  whole  or  part  of  the  sum  claimed  by  said  Hayes, 
so  that,  in  fact,  said  Hayes  has  not  been  relieved  from  his  heavy 
responsibilities. 

"Specification  8.  That  he,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  so  being 
Bishop  as  aforesaid,  in  the  years  1846,  18-i7  and  1848,  in  the  Diocese 
of  New  Jersey,  prevailed  upon  and  induced  Joseph  Deacon,  of  the 
County  of  Burlington,  to  endorse  sundry  notes  of  him,  the  said 
George  W.  Doane,  under  false  representations  and  pretences  of  his 
ability  to  meet  said  notes  when  they  should  respectively  fall  due,  when 
at  the  time  the  said  George  W.  Doane  was  hopelessly  insolvent ; 
and  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  when  some  of  the  said  notes  were 
about  falling  due,  prevailed  upon  said  Deacon  to  endorse  other  notes, 
under  the  assurance  that  they  would  only  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
renewing  notes  already  given,  and  obtained  such  endorsements  of 
notes  without  date ;  when  in  fact  said  George  W.  Doane,  in  violation 
of  his  promises  and  assurances,  not  only  failed  and  neglected  to 
provide  for  said  notes  as  they  respectively  fell  due,  but  on  the  con- 
trary, instead  of  applying  said  notes  so  given  for  the  single  purpose 
of  renewing  others,  applied  them  in  whole  or  in  part  to  other  pur- 
poses, leaving  the  notes  so  to  have  been  renewed  still  outstanding, 
and  largely  augmenting  the  responsibilities  of  said  Deacon,  without 
his  knowledge  or  consent,  and  greatly  to  the  injury  of  his  worldly 
estate. 

"Specification  9.  That  said  George  W.  Doane,  Bishop  as  afore- 
said, in  the  year  1848,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  falsely  repre- 
senting in  person  and  by  his  authorized  agents,  that  if  he  could 
obtain  a  loan  of  $50,000,  it  would  enable  him  to  pay  off  the  whole 


(  1^  ) 

of  his  floating  debt,  including  said  responsibilities  of  said  Joseph 
Deacon,  and  that  the  money  thus  procured  should  be  thus  appro- 
priated, induced  said  Deacon  to  subscribe  $2000  as  a  part  of  said 
$50,000,  and  subsequently  $1000 ;  which  said  sum  of  $3000  was 
paid  by  said  Deacon,  confiding  in  said  assurances  and  promises,  and 
he,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  having  thus  procured  said  sum  of 
$3000,  in  violation  of  his  said  promises,  never  appropriated  said  sum 
or  any  part  thereof  to  relieve  said  Deacon  from  his  said  responsi- 
bilities, nor  has  he  ever  repaid,  or  secured  the  repayment  of,  the 
same  or  any  part  thereof. 

"  Specification  10.  That  in  or  about  the  years  18-16,  1847  and 
18-48,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  he,  the  said  George  W.  Doane, 
being  Bishop  as  aforesaid,  did,  when  he  must  have  known  that  his 
affairs  were  inextricably  embarrassed,  borrow  of  the  Eev.  Eeuben  J. 
Germain,  a  Presbyter  of  the  said  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  and  then 
principal  of  St,  Mary's  Hall  in  Burlington,  an  institution  under  the 
control  of  said  George  W.  Doane,  and  said  Eeuben  J.  Germain  then 
being  Treasurer  of  the  Diocesan  Convention  of  New  Jersey,  suras 
of  money  belonging  to  said  Convention,  and  in  the  hands  or  under 
the  control  of  said  Germain,  Treasurer  as  aforesaid,  without  giving 
any  security  for  the  repayment  of  said  money  so  loaned,  other  than 
the  personal  obligations  of  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  which  he 
very  well  knew  to  be  no  adequate  security ;  the  said  Germain  also 
not  having  given  any  security  for  the  faithful  performance  of  his 
duty  as  Treasurer  as  aforesaid,  and  it  being  his  duty  to  invest  said 
money  only  on  undoubted  security ;  and  the  said  Germain,  as  Treas- 
urer as  aforesaid,  having  in  order  to  procure  said  moneys  so  loaned, 
as  aforesaid,  or  a  part  of  the  same,  at  the  instance  of  the  said  George 
W.  Doane,  Bishop  as  aforesaid,  sold  out  or  obtained  payment  of 
good  mortgages,  stocks,  or  other  securities  belonging  to  said  Con- 
vention, and  in  his  hands  as  Treasurer  as  aforesaid ;  none  of  which 
loans,  acts,  or  proceedings  were  for  several  years  made  known  to 
said  Convention,  to  which  said  property  and  money  rightfully 
belonged ;  nor  was  such  debt,  so  contracted,  stated  in  the  list  of  the 
debts  of  said  George  W.  Doane,  attached  to  his  deed  of  assignment 
and  attested  by  his  oath,  nor  did  they  ever  come  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  said  Convention,  until  brought  out  at  its  meeting  in  May,  1849, 
by  specific  and  urgent  interrogatories. 

"Specification  11.  That  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  Bishop  as 


(    15    ) 

aforesaid,  in  the  attempt  to  obtain  the  aforesaid  loan  of  $50,000, 
as  contained  in  Specifications  6  and  9,  did,  in  the  Diocese  of 
New  Jersey,  represent,  and  induce  his  agents  to  represent,  to 
several  persons  to  whom  application  was  made  for  assistance 
towards  said  loan,  namely,  Michael  ITayes,  Joseph  Deacon,  Sarah 
C.  Eobardet,  John  Black,  John  Irick,  Matthew  McIIenry,  and  J.  J. 
Spencer,  that  it  would  be  a  perfectly  safe  investment  on  good 
security,  when  he  well  knew  that  the  only  security  that  could  be 
given  was  upon  property  already  under  heavy  mortgages  approach- 
ing nearly  to  its  whole  value,  and  when,  in  fact,  no  other  security 
has  been  given,  and  the  value  of  the  security  given  to  half  the  sub- 
scribers to  the  loan,  was  diminished  by  one  half,  since  the  other 
subscribers  were  only  creditors  who  funded  a  portion  of  their  debts 
in  said  loan,  in  the  hope  of  so  securing  the  rest. 

"  Specification  12.  That  in  October,  1848,  he,  the  said  George 
W.  Doane,  Bishop  as  aforesaid,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  being 
then,  as  he  must  have  well  known,  utterly  insolvent,  borrowed  of 
the  Kev.  Alfred  Stubbs,  then  Presbyter  of  the  said  Diocese  of  New 
Jersey,  and  Treasurer  of  the  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Christian 
Knowledge  and  Piety,  an  association  of  members  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  said  Diocese,  the  sum  of  $1000,  belonging  to 
the  said  Society,  and  in  the  hands  of  said  Stubbs  as  Treasurer,  and 
which  it  was  the  bonnden  duty  of  the  said  Stubbs  to  invest  on  un- 
doubted security,  and  did  promise  that  he  would  without  delay  give 
satisfactory  security  for  the  repayment  of  said  loan ;  whereas,  the 
said  George  W.  Doane,  in  neglect  and  violation  of  his  said  promise, 
did  give  no  other  security  than  his  own  judgment  bond,  which  was 
not  satisfactory  to  said  Stubbs,  and  could  only  be  made  available  in 
certain  contingencies,  and  was  thus  no  effectual  security,  and  in 
fact  did  not  prove  available ;  which  money  so  loaned  was  not,  so 
late  as  the  24th  of  February,  1852,  either  repaid  or  secured. 

"  Specificatiox  13.  That  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  Bishop  as 
aforesaid,  having  for  a  long  period  purchased  groceries  of  Thomas 
Button,  of  Burlington,  New  Jersey,  for  the  use  of  his  own  family  and 
that  of  St.  Mary's  Hall,  and  that  of  his  Mother,  and  having  also 
given  his  notes  to  said  Button  for  groceries  furnished  to  the  fam- 
ilies of  the  teachers  connected  with  St.  Mary's  Ilall  and  Burhngton 
College,  did  from  time  to  time  promise  payment  of  the  account  of 
the  said  Button  and  of  said  notes,  but  utterly  failed  to  keep  such 


(     16    ) 

promises,  so  that  the  said  Dutton,  being  in  declining  health  and 
possessed  of  but  small  property,  was  deeply  distressed  and  declared 
his  utter  want  of  confidence  in  the  word  of  the  said  George  W. 
Doane,  and  at  the  time  of  his  death,  just  before  the  said  Doane  made 
his  assignment  to  his  creditors,  did  leave  his  family  in  impaired  cir- 
cumstances through  the  misconduct  of  the  said  George  W.  Doane. 
and  to  the  great  dishonour  of  Behgion  and  his  high  ofl&ce  in  the 
Church  of  God. 

"  Specification  14.  That  in  the  year  1847  or  1848,  in  the  Dio- 
cese of  New  Jersey,  he  borrowed  of  Mr.  Page, of  the  City  of  Burling- 
ton, who  was  at  that  time  a  clerk  in  the  store  of  Thomas  Dutton, 
the  sum  of  $500,  which  he  afterwards  repeatedly  promised,  but  has 
ever  since  wholly  neglected  to  pay,  and  which  debt  he  did  not  men- 
tion in  his  attested  list  of  debts  as  aforesaid. 

•  "  Specification  15.  That  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  Bishop  as 
aforesaid,  in  violation  of  his  solemn  obligation  as  a  minister  of  the 
Church  of  God,  to  '  forsake  and  set  aside,  as  much  as  he  might,  all 
worldly  cares  and  studies,'  did  not  only  entangle  himself  in  a  vast 
and  unnecessary  accumulation  of  worldly  transactions,  but,  to  the 
great  dishonour  of  his  oflEice  as  a  Bishop,  and  relying  on  the  confi- 
dence of  others  in  his  official  character  and  station,  did  attempt  to 
create  and  preserve  a  fictitious  credit  by  drawing  checks  and  counter 
checks  on  various  Banks,  viz.,  the  Bank  of  Princeton,  the  Mechanics' 
Bank  of  Burlington,  the  Morris  County  Bank,  the  People's  Bank  of 
Paterson,  &c.,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  and  transmitting  the 
same  from  one  Bank  to  another,  in  a  manner  esteemed  disreputable 
and  unallowable  among  merchants  and  other  men  of  business,  so 
that  his  transactions  of  such  kind,  in  the  single  Bank  of  Princeton, 
amounted,  in  less  than  two  years,  to  wit,  from  January  1st,  1847,  to 
October  14th,  1848,  to  $138,000. 

"  Specification  16.  That,  during  the  period  between  the  years 
1847  and  1849,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  he,  the  said  George 
W.  Doane,  Bishop  as  aforesaid,  repeatedly  drew  and  delivered,  in 
payment  of  moneys  which  he  owed,  or,  as  good  and  available,  many 
checks  or  drafts  on  the  Mechanics'  Bank  of  Burlington,  on  the  Bank 
of  North  America  in  Philadelphia,  and  other  Banks,  for  sums  of 
money,  when  at  the  times  said  checks  or  drafts  were  given,  he  had 
either  no  funds  to  his  credit  in  said  Banks,  or  to  an  amount  insuffi- 


(    17    ) 

cient  to  meet  said  checks  or  drafts  when  presented  for  payment,  and 
which  said  checks,  or  some  of  them,  still  remain  unpaid  and  unsatis- 
fied. Several  of  said  clicoks  were  by  said  George  W.  Doane  drawn 
in  favour  of  or  delivered  to  Michael  Hayes,  others  to  Joseph  Deacon, 
and  others  to  JNlrs.  C.  Lippincott,  one  to  Charles  AVoolman,  one  to 
"Wm.  B.  Price,  and  others  to  Cash  or  Bearer.  'lie  also  drew  a  check 
on  said  Mechanics'  Bank  of  Burlington  for  the  sum  of  $2200  and 
transmitted  the  same  to  the  Princeton  Bank,  in  payment  of  a  debt 
due  by  him  to  said  last-mentioned  Bank,  when  there  were  no  funds 
in  said  Mechanics'  Bank  to  his  credit  at  the  time  said  check  was 
drawn  or  was  presented  for  payment.  And  the  said  George  W. 
Doane  persisted  in  drawing  such  checks  or  drafts  after  he  had  been 
informed  by  an  officer  of  said  Mechanics'  Bank  that  the  practice  was 
irregular  and  must  not  be  continued.  He  also,  on  the  3d  day  of 
March,  A.  D.  1843,  drew  a  promissory  note,  payable  to  Wiley  & 
Putnam,  booksellers  in  the  City  of  New  York,  for  the  sum  of  $197 
93  cents,  payable  at  the  Bank  of  North  America  in  Philadelphia, 
when  the  said  George  W.  Doane  kept  no  account  in  said  Bank,  and 
provided  no  funds  for  the  payment  of  the  said  promissory  note 
when  the  same  arrived  at  maturity,  but  suffered  the  same  to  be  pro- 
tested. 

"  Specification  17.  That  in  repeated  instances,  and  on  several 
occasions,  during  the  years  1817,  1818  and  1819,  in  the  Diocese  of 
New  Jersey,  he  abused  the  confidence  reposed  in  his  sacred  office 
by  false  promises  and  deceptive  practices,  used  for  the  purpose  of 
obtaining  money,  credit  and  property ;  among  other  instances,  in 
the  following,  viz  :  He  induced  by  such  means,  a  young  man  named 
"Wm.  B.  Price,  who  had  provided  funds  to  meet  a  business  engage- 
ment of  his  own,  to  loan  to  him  the  sum  of  $150,  or  other  large  sum, 
by  solemnly  assuring  said  Price  that  he  would  return  the  same  in 
time  to  enable  said  Price  to  meet  his  engagement ;  and  said  George 
AV.  Doane  did  give  said  Price  a  check  on  the  Mechanics'  Bank  of 
Burlington  for  the  amount  so  borrowed,  which  check  when  presented 
at  said  Bank  was  refused  payment  on  the  ground  of  there  being  no 
funds  in  said  Bank  to  the  credit  of  said  Doane,  He  prevailed  upon 
Sarah  C.  Robardet  to  loan  to  him  the  sum  of  $3000  by  a  solemn 
promise  to  give  her,  as  security  for  repayment,  a  mortgage  upon 
property  worth  $8000,  and  instead  thereof  gave  her  a  mortgage  upon 
property  not  intrinsically  worth  that  sum,  and  which,  as  ascertained 
afterwards  by  said  Sarah  C.  Ptobardet,  was  at  the  time  said  mortgage 

2 


(    18    ) 

was  given  subject  to  a  prior  incumbrance  of  $2500,  whicli  said  prior 
incumbrance  has  been  since  only  partially  removed. 

"  He,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  being  largely  indebted  to 
Mrs.  C.  Lippincott,  a  lady  asserted  by  him  in  his  pamphlet,  en- 
titled '  Bishop  Doane's  Protest,'  &c.,  to  be  '  connected  by  marriage 
with  his  family,'  and  to  have  been  '  for  many  years  as  one  of  his 
family,'  and  to  whom  he  had  given  security  for  the  moneys  due  her 
by  him,  did,  in  violation  of  the  special  claim  on  his  protection 
arising  out  of  said  domestic  relations,  induce  her  to  place  said  se- 
curity in  his  hands  under  his  promise  to  return  the  same,  which 
promise  he  has  wholly  neglected  to  perform,  but  has  used  the  prop- 
erty on  which  said  security  was  given  her,  to  secure  some  other 
creditor  or  creditors. 

"  lie,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  did  make  or  represent  that  he 
had  made,  a  collection  in  the  parish  of  St.  Mary's  Church,  Burling- 
ton, for  the  purchase  of  books  for  a  parish  library,  or  other  such 
object,  and  did  obtain  from  Herman  Hooker,  bookseller  in  Phila- 
delphia, a  number  of  books  for  said  object,  to  the  amount  of  about 
$70,  which  amount,  though  earnestly  applied  for  by  said  Hooker, 
has  never  been  paid,  and  was  not  mentioned  on  the  list  of  debts 
sworn  to  by  said  George  W.  Doane. 

"  Specification  18.  That  he,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  so  be- 
ing Bishop  as  aforesaid,  on  the  29th  day  of  March,  A.  D.  1849,  in 
the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  made  an  af&davit  before  John  Rodgers, 
Master  in  Chancery,  which  was  appended  to  a  paper  or  document 
purporting  to  be  '  An  Inventory  of  the  Estate  Eeal  and  Personal  of 
George  W.  Doane,  of  the  City  and  County  of  Burlington,  assigned 
to  Garret  S.  Cannon  and  Robert  B.  Aertsen,  for  the  benefit  of  his 
creditors,  together  with  a  list  of  his  creditors  and  the  amount  of 
their  respective  claims,'  and  immediately  following  what  pur- 
ported to  be  an  '  inventory  of  estate,'  in  which  said  aOidavit  he  did, 
in  due  form  of  law,  '  being  duly  sworn  upon  the  Holy  Evangelists 
■of  Almighty  God,'  depose  and  say  that  the  above  was  '  a  true  and 
perfect  inventory  of  all  his  real  and  personal  property,  together  with 
the  value  thereof,  as  near  as  he  could  ascertain,'  whereas,  in  truth 
and  in  fact  the  said  inventory  did  not  set  forth  the  true  and  actual 
value  of  very  many  articles  of  property  therein  enumerated,  as  near 
as  said  George  W.  Doane  could  ascertain ;  and  in  particular,  said 
document  did  not  truly  set  forth  the  value  of  the  several  articles  of 
iurniture  and  household  goods  and  other  articles  in  Burlington  Col- 


(    19    ) 

lege,  St.  Mary's  Ilall,  and  liis  house  at  Eiverside,  but  stated  and  set 
forth  the  said  articles,  or  many  of  them,  at  values  known  by  said 
George  "W.  Doane  at  the  date  of  said  affidavit  to  be  below  the  true 
value  of  such  articles,  and  in  each  of  the  said  particulars  the  said 
document  was  grossly  false  and  erroneous,  within  the  knowledge  or 
the  means  of  knowledge  of  the  said  George  W.  Doane  at  the  date 
of  such  affidavit. 

"  Specification  19.  That  he,  said  George  W.  Doane,  so  being 
Bishop  as  aforesaid,  on  the  29th  day  of  March,  1849,  in  the  Diocese 
of  New  Jersey,  made  an  affidavit  before  John  Rodgers,  Master  in 
Chancer}'-,  which  was  appended  to  a  paper  or  document,  being  that 
part  of  the  document  mentioned  in  the  preceding  specification,  which 
purported  to  be  a  '  List  of  Creditors'  of  said  George  W.  Doane,  in 
which  said  affidavit  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  having  been  duly 
sworn  according  to  law,  did  depose  and  say  that  '  the  above' 
(meaning  said  list  of  creditors)  was  '  a  true,  full  and  perfect  list  of  all 
his  creditors,  with  the  amounts  severally  due  to  them,  as  far  as  he 
hath  been  able  to  ascertain,  according  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  ;' 
whereas,  in  truth  and  in  fact,  as  was  well  known  to  said  George  W. 
Doane,  the  same  was  not  *  a  true,  full  and  perfect  list  of  his  cred- 
itors and  of  the  amounts  respectively  due  to  them ;'  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, was  deficient  in  many  particulars,  among  others  in  the  follow- 
ing, viz.: 

"It  did  not  set  forth  as  among  his  creditors  the  names  of  the  several 
parties  and  persons  following,  to  whom  he  was  then  indebted,  and 
who  should  have  been  included  in  said  list. 

"  It  did  not  set  forth  the  name  of  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese 
of  New  Jersey,  or  of  the  Treasurer  of  said  Convention,  to  whom  he 
perfectly  well  knew  that  he  was  indebted  in  a  sum  exceeding 
$7000 ; 

"  It  did  not  set  forth  the  name  of  the  People's  Bank  at  Paterson, 
to  which  he  was  indebted  in  the  sum  of  $250  ; 

"  It  did  not  set  forth  the  name  of  the  Trenton  Banking  Company, 
to  which  he  was  then  a  debtor  to  the  amount  of  $800,  or  other 
large  sum ; 

"  It  did  not  set  forth  the  name  of  the  Princeton  Bank,  to  which 
he  was  then  indebted  to  the  amount  of  $1077,  or  other  large  sum  ; 

"It  did  not  set  forth  the  name  of  the  Bucks  County  Bank,  to 
which  he  was  indebted  to  the  amount  of  $1000,  or  other  large 
sum: 


(    20    ) 

"  It  did  not  set  forth  the  name  of  the  Morris  County  Bank,  to 
which  he  was  then  indebted  to  the  amount  of  $650,  or  other  Large  sum ; 
"  It  did  not  set  forth  the  name  of  the  Camden  Bank,  or  that  of 
the  Medford  Bank,  to  each  of  which  said  Banks  he  was  largely  in- 
debted ; 

"  It  did  not  set  forth  the  name  of  H.  R.  Cleaveland,  to  whom  he 
well  knew  that  he  owed  about  $15,000  ; 

"  It  did  not  set  forth  the  name  of  Wilham  Chester,  to  whom  he 
knew  that  he  owed  $800  ; 

"  It  did  not  set  forth  the  name  of  Sarah  Robardet,  to  whom  he  well 
knew  that  he  was  indebted  in  the  sum  of  $3000  ; 

"It  did  not  set  forth  the  name  of  George  Zantzinger,  wine-mer- 
chant, to  whom  he  was  indebted  in  the  sum  of  $1200,  or  other  large 
amount ; 

"  It  did  not  set  forth  the  name  of  Mr.  Page,  of  Burlington,  to  whom 
he  was  indebted  in  the  sum  of  $500,  or  other  large  amount ; 

"  It  did  not  set  forth  the  name  of  Herman  Hooker,  to  whom  he 
was  indebted  in  the  sum  of  $70,  or  other  considerable  sum  ; 

"  It  did  not  set  forth  the  name  of  Gideon  Humphrey,  of  Burlington, 
to  whom  he  was  indebted  in  the  sum  of  $3000  ; 

"  It  did  not  set  forth  the  name  of  Isaac  B.  Parker,  and  others  in 
trust,  to  whom  he  was  indebted  in  the  sum  of  $50,000; 

"  It  did  not  set  forth  the  fact  that  there  were  outstanding  checks, 
drawn  by  him  on  the  Mechanics'  Bank  at  Burlington,  and  then  in 
the  hands  of  various  persons  to  him  unknown. 

"  And  the  said  list  was  deficient  in  setting  forth  the  amounts  sev- 
erally due  to  the  creditors  named,  amongst  others  in  the  following 
particulars,  viz. : 

"  It  is  set  forth  that  Michael  Hayes  was  a  creditor  to  the  amount  of 
$17,500,  whereas  said  Hayes  was  at  that  time  a  creditor  to  the 
amount  of  $29,000 ; 

"  It  is  set  forth  that  Joseph  Deacon  was  a  creditor  in  the  sum  of 
$28,'150,  whereas  said  Deacon  was  then  a  creditor  to  the  amount 
of  about  $30,000 ; 

"  He,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  in  the  particulars  set  forth  in  this 
specification,  manifestly  showing  a  sinful  disregard  for  the  sacred 
character  and  solemn  obligations  of  an  oath. 

"  Specification  20.  That  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  while  en- 
gaged during  several  years  in  transactions  largely  involving  the 
pecuniary  interests  of  many  persons,  as  well  as  his  own  honour  and 


(    21    ) 

the  honour  and  interests  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  being  under  the 
strongest  obhgations  to  a  proportionate  accuracy  and  iidelity,  yet  kept 
no  true  and  accurate  account  of  his  checks,  endorsed  notes,  or  other 
notes,  debts,  or  engagements,  and  adopted  no  regular  system  of 
book-keeping  at  the  institutions  under  his  control ;  and,  according 
to  his  own  statement,  had  no  accounts  whatever  which  would 
enable  hira  to  preserve  an  acquaintance  with  the  real  state  of  his 
alfairs. 

"  Specification  21.  That  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  at  the  sale 
of  his  personal  effects  in  1849,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  for  the 
benefit  of  his  creditors,  acquiesced  in  the  sale  of  the  said  effects  or 
a  portion  of  them,  and  especially  of  his  valuable  library,  at  a  price 
much  below  their  real  value,  and  without  such  due  and  proper 
exposure  for  sale  as  would  have  made  them  yield  the  largest  amount 
to  his  creditors ;  and  afterwards  received  the  same  for  his  own  use 
and  benefit;  in  violation  of  his  obligation  to  be  in  all  things  an. 
example  of  strict  justice  and  self-denying  integrity. 

"  Specification  22.  That  he,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  in  the 
several  particulars  herein  before  mentioned,  employed  his  high  office 
of  Bishop,  and  the  confiding  trust  reposed  in  him  in  consequence 
thereof,  in  practising  deception  upon  Presbyters  over  whom  he 
exercised  power  and  influence  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  to 
wit,  the  Eev.  Alfred  Stubbs,  the  Rev.  Reuben  J.  Germain,  and  the 
Rev.  John  D.  Ogilby,  D.  D.,  and  upon  women  connected  with  his 
own  pastoral  charge,  to  wit,  Mrs.  C.  Lippincott,  Mrs.  S.  C.  Robardet, 
Mrs.  A.  C.  Winslow,  and  others  upon  whom  such  influence  might 
operate. 

"  Specification  23.  That  when  an  attempt  was  made  in  the 
Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  in  the  month  of  May, 
1849,  by  one  of  his  Presbyters,  to  wit,  the  Rev.  Ilenry  B.  Sherman, 
to  obtain  information  as  to  the  securities  of  the  Episcopal  Fund 
belonging  to  said  Convention,  he,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  en- 
deavoured to  intimidate  said  Presbyter,  and  to  deter  him  from  the 
performance  of  his  duty  and  the  exercise  of  his  rights:  and  when 
Michael  Hayes,  a  short  time  previous  to  the  Convention  of  the 
Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  in  the  year  1851,  in  the  City  of  Burlington, 
intimated  to  him,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  his  intention  to  brino- 
matters  at  issue  between  them  before  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese 


(    22     ) 

of  New  Jersey,  the  said  George  W.  Doane  endeavoured  to  deter  bim 
from  so  doing,  by  threatening  that  if  he  did  so,  he,  the  said  George 
W.  Doane,  would  put  himself  on  his  defence,  and  he,  the  said  Hayes, 
would  get  nothing;  and  when  Joseph  Deacon,  on  a  certain  occasion 
in  the  year  1849,  threatened  to  go  before  the  Grand  Jury  of  Bur- 
lington County  to  enter  complaint  against  him,  he  endeavoured  to 
intimidate  said  Deacon,  and  to  deter  him  from  so  doing  by  threats 
of  personal  violence  accompanied  with  menacing  gestures  and  mani- 
festations of  great  anger,  and  said  to  him,  the  said  Deacon,  '  If  you 
do  so,  I'll  kill  you,  I'll  kill  you!'  the  said  Deacon  being  a  very  aged 
man,  and  at  the  time  alone  with  said  George  W.  Doane  in  an  apart- 
ment of  his  house  at  Riverside. 

"  Specification  24:.  That  he,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  Bishop 
as  aforesaid,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  has  violated  his  trust  as 
guardian  of  the  young  child  of  the  late  Rev.  Benjamin  D.  Winslow, 
by  employing,  for  his  own  purposes,  money,  the  property  of  said 
child,  which  came  into  his  hands  as  such  guardian,  and  not  at  all 
securing  its  repayment. 

"  Specification  25.  That  he,  the  said  George  "W.  Doane,  Bishop 
as  aforesaid,  prevailed  upon  Wm.  H.  Carse,  then  in  his  employ  at 
Burlington,  as  gardener,  to  loan  to  him  the  sum  of  $519  13  cents,  and 
to  borrow  from  a  friend  the  further  sum  of  about  $590  for  the  use 
of  said  George  W.  Doane  ;  and  notwithstanding  his  repeated  prom- 
ises of  repayment,  he  utterly  neglected  and  failed  to  perform  the 
same  for  a  long  period,  until  compelled  to  compromise  and  settle  the 
matter  by  the  reproachful  and  menacing  letters  of  said  Carse  s  wife. 

"Specification  26.  That  he,  the  said  George  "W.  Doane,  Bishop 
as  aforesaid,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  notwithstanding  he  has 
been  for  years  in  a  state  of  utter  insolvency,  has  nevertheless  con- 
tinued to  indulge  in  unnecessary  and  unbecoming  expensiveness  of 
living,  inconsistent  with  strict  integrity,  and  especially  with  the  prop- 
er example  of  a  Bishop  in  the  Church  of  God,  while  he  knew  that 
many  of  his  creditors  were  suffering  for  the  want  of  money  which 
he  owed  them,  and  which  he  had  induced  them  to  trust  in  his 
hands  on  account  of  their  confidence  in  his  ability  to  pay,  and  in  his 
representations  and  promises. 

"  Specification  27.  That  he,  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  Bishop 


(    23     ) 

as  aforesaid,  in  liis  pamphlet  before  mentioned,  published  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1852,  and  entitled  '  The  Protest  and  Appeal  of  George  Wash- 
ington Doane,  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,'  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey, 
having  deliberately  and  with  solemn  appeal  to  Almighty  God, 
declared  his  '  perfect  and  entire  innocence  and  integrity  as  to  all 
and  singular  the  charges  made  against  him,'  has  asserted  what  is 
entirely  false,  and  made  representations  which  were  adapted  greath'' 
to  mislead  the  public  mind,  among  others  in  the  following  par- 
ticulars, viz. : 

"lie  avers  that  his  debt  was  'not  personal  to  himself,'  when  the 
whole  of  the  same  was  contracted  solely  on  his  own  responsibility, 
and  under  no  necessity  or  obligation,  and  when  a  large  part  of 
the  same  was  connected  with  no  public  or  ecclesiastical  object. 

"  He  says  that  '  the  Treasurer  of  the  Convention  lent  him  his 
uninvested  funds  temporarily  on  his  notes,'  when  the  said  loans  had 
been,  and  had  been  intended  to  be,  as  permanent  as  any  others, 

"  He  says  that  '  the  Treasurer  had  a  precedent  for  this,  before  the 
Episcopate  of  the  undersigned,'  when  no  real  precedent  for  trans- 
actions like  this  had  existed. 

**  He  states  that '  there  were  several  Banks  in  New  Jersey  at  which 
special  friends  of  the  undersigned  and  of  his  work  were  influential 
as  Presidents  and  Cashiers — on  which  he  was  permitted  to  draw 
short  drafts,  from  time  to  time,  to  be  discounted  and  placed  to  his 
credit,'  and  that  'at  their  maturity  they  were  duly  met,'  whereas 
no  such  permission  had  been  given  him. 

"  He  asserts  that  '  Michael  Hayes  has  acknowledged,  as  can  be 
proved,  that  he  declared  under  oath  before  the  Grand  Jury  in 
August,  1850,  that  he  had  no  cause  of  complaint  against  the  under- 
signed,' whereas  the  said  Michael  Hayes  has  made  no  such  declara- 
tion. 

"  He  asserts,  in  reference  to  the  transaction  alleged  in  the  1st 
Specification  of  the  8th  Charge  against  him,  as  given  in  the  said 
pamphlet,  that  '  there  was  no  refusal  of  a  check  on  the  Burlington 
Bank.' 

"He  asserts  that  'he  continued  to  enjoy,  uninterrupted  and 
undiminished,  the  confidence  of  his  Convention,  the  confidence  of 
his  Diocese,  the  confidence  of  the  Trustees  and  patrons  of  the  Col- 
lege and  of  the  Hall,  the  confidence  of  his  friends,  and  the  confidence 
of  the  community  ;'  when  he  well  knew  that  the  confidence  of  the 
community  and  of  many  individuals  in  his  Diocese  was  much 
diminished. 


(    24    ) 

"  He  asserts  that  '  no  charges  have  been  brought  against  him  by 
any  respectable  or  responsible  person,'  when  such  charges  were 
contained  in  a  pamphlet  published  by  the  Eector  of  a  respectable 
parish  in  his  Diocese,  with  the  unanimous  approval  of  the  Wardens 
and  Vestrymen  of  the  same. 

"  He  asserts  that  he  was  the  bearer  of  a  letter  from  the  former 
Treasurer  of  the  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Christian  Knowledge 
and  Piety,  to  the  Eev.  Mr.  Stubbs,  containing  the  funds  which  he 
afterwards  borrowed  from  said  Stubbs ;  when,  in  fact,  the  said  funds 
Avere  carefully  delivered  by  the  said  Treasurer  to  the  said  Stubbs  in 
person. 

"  He  avers  that  in  all  his  transactions  '  nothing  was  ever  done  but 
in  good  faith.' 

"  He  avers  that  '  for  twelve  years  nearly  he  kept  all  his  large  and 
various  engagements.' 

"  He  asserts  that  the  investment  of  the  funds  of  the  Convention  in 
his  notes  '  was  considered  safe,'  and  'has  been  perfectly  secured.' 

"He  asserts  that  'a  memorandum  of  the  debt  due  to  the  Con- 
vention was  sent  in  to  Mr.  Aertsen,  though,  as  it  proved,  too  late 
to  be  included  in  the  list'  of  his  debts;  when  it  was  in  his  power  to 
have  inserted  it  at  any  moment  prior  to  taking  the  oath  subscribed 
to  said  list. 

"He  states  that  the  'only  ground'  of  the  'allegation'  which  he 
denominates  '  false,'  that  he  drew  checks  on  the  Burlington  Bank 
when  he  had  no  money  in  said  Bank,  '  was  his  habit  of  making  his 
account  good  every  day  at  three  o'clock,'  and  that  '  provision  was 
made  to  meet  his  checks  daily  until  the  sickness  occurred;'  whereas 
he  well  knew  that  they  had  often  been  left  without  funds  to  meet 
them  at  said  hour,  and  that  many  have  never  been  paid. 

"  He  denies  entirely  having  made  any  pretence  that  notes  endorsed 
for  him  by  Michael  Hayes  were  to  renew  notes  which  had  been 
previously  endorsed  by  said  Hayes. 

"  He  states  that '  Mrs.  C.  Lippincott  was  most  intimately  accjuainted 
with  the  business  risks  and  relations  of  the  undersigned,'  and  acted, 
in  lending  him  the  funds,  '  with  the  fullest  intelligence  and  most 
perfect  freedom ;'  when,  according  to  his  own  statement,  neither  he 
nor  any  other  person  was  intimately  acquainted  with  the  actual 
condition  of  his  affairs,  so  as  to  act  in  connection  with  them  with  the 
fullest  intelligence. 

"  He  afl&rms,  with  reference  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Grand  Jury 
of  the  County  of  Burlington,  that '  it  was  through  no  influence  of  his 


(    25    ) 

direct  or  indirect,  nor  witli  "his  privity,  that  any  thing  was  done  or 
not  done,  considered  or  reconsidered;'  when  it  was  indeed  through 
his  personal  persuasion  and  his  efforts  to  arrange  compromises  with 
two  of  his  creditors,  that  such  proceedings  were  dropped. 

"Specification  28.  That  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  being 
indebted  to  the  Camden  Bank  on  the  25th  day  of  December,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  1848,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  upon  a 
promissory  note  drawn  payable  to  Joseph  Deacon  for  the  sum  of 
$1000,  which  said  promissory  note  was  protested  ;  and  a  suit  having 
been  subsequently  prosecuted  on  said  note  against  the  said  endorser, 
Joseph  Deacon,  and  a  judgment  obtained  for  the  amount  of  said 
note,  together  with  interest  and  costs ;  the  said  Bank,  at  the  request 
of  said  Joseph  Deacon  and  George  "W.  Doane,  or  one  of  them,  on 
the  7th  day  of  December,  A.  D.  184:9,  agreed  that  the  Bank  should 
relinquish  their  judgment  against  the  said  Joseph  Deacon  if  he 
would  pay  the  sum  of  $750,  and  the  said  George  W.  Doane  would 
agree  to  pay  the  balance,  and  the  said  George  W.  Doane  did  there- 
upon agree  to  pay  the  sum  of  $286  14  cents  if  the  Bank  would  give 
him  time ;  and  the  Bank  agreed  that  the  said  George  W.  Doane 
should  fix  upon  such  time  for  payment  as  would  suit  him,  and  draw 
his  notes  accordingly,  and  the  said  George  W.  Doane  thereupon 
agreed  to  pay  the  same  in  four  instalments,  and  drew  four  notes, 
having  an  interval  of  several  months  between  the  time  of  payment, 
and  amounting,  in  the  aggregate,  to  the  sum  of  $286  24  cents ;  that 
the  said  notes,  as  they  respectively  arrived  at  maturity,  were  unpaid, 
but  were  renewed  from  time  to  time  until  the  9th  of  November, 
A.  D.  1850,  and  were  protested  for  non-payment,  and  the  amount 
of  discount  and  interest  and  protest  increased  the  aggregate  amount 
of  said  notes  to  the  amount  of  $316  32  cents,  and  that  the  said 
promissory  note  still  remains  unpaid. 

"  Specification  29.  That  the  said  George  "VY.  Doane,  Bishop  as 
aforesaid,  on  or  about  the  5th  day  of  Jane,  A.  D.  1850,  in  the 
Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  being  indebted  to  the  Camden  Bank  upon  a 
promissory  note  endorsed  by  Michael  Hayes  for  the  sum  of  $100, 
and  being  unable  to  pay  the  said  note  when  it  arrived  at  maturity, 
applied  to  the  Cashier  of  said  Camden  Bank,  and  requested  him  not 
to  protest  the  same,  assuring  him  that  if  he  would  not  protest  said 
note,  he,  the  said  George  AV.  Doane,  soon  after  his  return  home, 
would  send  to  said  Cashier  the  money  to  pay  the  said  note,  or  would 


(    26    ) 

send  him  a  new  note  for  the  same  with  Michael  Hayes's  endorsement ; 
and  that  the  said  Cashier,  reljing  upon  the  said  promise  of  the  said 
Bishop  Doane,  did  not  protest  said  note,  and  by  his  omission  so  to 
do,  the  said  Camden  Bank  lost  the  security  of  the  said  endorser  on 
said  note,  who  was  abundantly  able  to  pay  the  same.  And  that  the 
said  George  W.  Doane,  disregarding  his  promise  and  assurance 
aforesaid,  wholly  neglected  to  send  the  money  for  the  payment  of 
said  note,  or  to  send  a  new  note  for  the  same  with  Michael  Hayes's 
endorsement,  though  frequently  requested  so  to  do,  and  that  said 
note  still  remains  unpaid. 

"  Specification  30.  That  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  Bishop  of 
New  Jersey,  for  many  years  past,  and  particularly  between  the 
years  1845  and  1852,  was  in  the  habit  of  obtaining  much  larger 
su^Dplies  of  intoxicating  drinks  for  the  use  of  his  table  than  was 
becoming  or  proper  in  a  minister  of  the  Gospel,  and  of  contracting 
large  debts  for  the  same ;  and  was  also,  during  the  same  period  of  time, 
in  the  habit  of  using  intoxicating  liquors  in  such  quantity  as  to  be 
unduly  excited  thereby,  to  the  great  grief  of  the  friends  of  the 
Church  and  the  dishonour  of  his  High  and  Holy  Office, 

"  And  that  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  on  or  about  the  10th  day 
of  November,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1851,  on  board  the  steamboat 
Trenton,  then  running  between  the  City  of  Philadelphia  and  the 
City  of  Burlington,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  was  in  a  state  of 
intoxication. 

"  And  that  the  said  George  W.  Doane,  in  or  about  the  month  of 
November,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1847,  in  the  Borough  of  Bor- 
dentown,  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  was  intoxicated. 

"  Specification  31.  And  that  the  said  George  "W.  Doane,  at 
various  times  during  the  years  1846,  1847,  1848  and  1849,  in  the 
Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  well  knowing  that  Joseph  Deacon  was  an 
old  man,  and  occasionally  fond  of  drinking  intoxicating  drinks, 
and  also  knowing  that  the  family  of  said  Joseph  Deacon  were 
averse  to  said  Joseph  Deacon's  endorsing  for  said  George  W.  Doane, 
and  that  the  said  Joseph  Deacon  had  declared  his  unwillingness  to 
continue  to  endorse  for  him,  did  go  to  the  house  of  said  Joseph 
Deacon,  and  there  drink  cider-brandy  with  the  said  Joseph  Deacon, 
and  after  he  had  drunk  with  said  Joseph  Deacon,  did  persuade  the 
said  Joseph  Deacon  to  endorse  more  notes  for  the  said  George 
W.  Doane,  and  sometimes  the  said  George  W.  Doane  did  ask  the 


(    27    ) 

said  Joseph  Deacon  for  some  of  said  brandy,  and  did  sometimes 
invite  the  said  Joseph  Deacon  to  go  out  of  doors  with  him,  and  did 
sit  or  lie  in  the  shade  of  a  tree  and  drink  cider-brandy  with  the 
said  Joseph  Deacon  until  he  had  persuaded  him  to  endorse  more 
notes  for  him,  after  said  Joseph  Deacon  had  expressed  a  deter- 
mination not  to  endorse  any  more  notes  for  said  George  W.  Doane. 
"William  Meade,  D.  D., 

"  Bishoj')  of  the  Prot.  Epis.  Gh.  in  Virginia. 
"  Charles  Pettit  McIlvaine,  D.  D,, 

"  Bishojy  of  the  Prot.  Epis.  Cli.  in  Ohio. 
"  George  Burgess,  D.  D., 

"  Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Epis.  Gh.  in  Maine. 
''July  2%  1852." 

On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Indiana, 

Ordered,  That  the  Committee  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  be 
now  admitted.     Whereupon  they  appeared  and  read  as  follows : 

"  To  the  Pig ht  Reverend  the  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Ghurch, 
assembled  upon  the  Presentment  of  the  Right  Reverend  George  W. 
Doane,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey. 

"Right  Reverend  Fathers, 

"  The  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  at  an  adjourned 
meeting  held  at  the  City  of  Newark,  on  the  14th  day  of  July  last, 
to  receive,  and  act  upon,  the  Report  of  the  Committee  appointed  at 
the  Annual  Convention,  held  on  the  last  Wednesday  in  May  pre- 
ceding, '  to  make  a  full  investigation  of  all  the  charges  which  had 
been  preferred  against  the  Bishop,'  adopted  the  following  resolution, 
viz. : 

"  Resolved,  That  a  Committee  of  four  clergymen  and  three  laymen 
be  appointed,  by  ballot,  to  lay  the  Report  of  the  Committee,  and  the 
accompanying  evidence,  before  the  Court  appointed  for  the  trial  of 
the  Bishop  of  this  Diocese ;  and  that  such  Committee  present  a  writ- 
ten representation,  on  behalf  of  this  Convention,  setting  forth  its 
legal  and  canonical  position  and  rights,  and  earnestly  and  respect- 
fully urging  the  Right  Rev.  Bishops,  to  consider  whether  (apart  from 
all  abstract  questions  of  power)  it  will  be  wise,  or  just,  or  for  the 
peace  of  God's  Church,  to  proceed  further  upon  the  charges  laid 
before  them. 

"  The  undersigned  were  appointed  the  Committee  under  this  reso- 


(    28    ) 

lution.     They  liave  annexed  hereto  the  Report,  and  evidence  re- 
ferred to  therein. 

"  In  the  further  discharge  of  the  duty  assigned  to  them  the  Com- 
mittee are  conscious  of  the  serious  responsibility  they  have  assumed, 
and  the  deep  importance  of  the  subject  they  are  instructed  to  discuss. 
A  large  majority  of  the  representatives  of  the  Clergy  and  Laity  of 
New  Jersey  have  declared  that  such  grave  and  momentous  rights 
of  the  Diocese  are  involved  in  this  presentment,  as  to  demand  that 
they  be  stated  to  your  body. 

"  To  you,  then,  as  bearing  the  chief  office  in  th.e  Holy  Apostolic 
Church — to  you,  as  constituting  the  highest  and  most  solemn  tri- 
bunal now  known  to  our  branch  of  that  Church,  we,  your  brethren 
in  faith  and  hope,  address,  on  behalf  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey, 
this  its  earnest  and  dutiful  representation. 

"  We  would  first  call  your  attention  to  a  statement  of  the  action 
of  the  Conventions  upon  this  subject. 

"In  the  year  1849,  at  a  Convention  of  the  Diocese,  then  assem- 
bled, a  resolution  was  offered  for  the  appointment  of  a  Committee  to 
investigate  the  truth  of  various  reports,  alleged  to  prevail,  impeach- 
ing the  honesty  and  truth  of  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese. 

"  The  only  reason  suggested  for  the  adoption  of  this  resolution, 
was,  that  rumours  existed  affecting  his  character,  and  that  they  had 
been  embodied  in  an  anonymous  article  in  a  public  print. 

"  The  Convention  refused  to  act  upon  such  a  ground ; — refused  to 
treat  the  fame  of  the  Bishop,  and  peace  of  the  Diocese,  as  matters  of 
such  light  moment,  as  to  place  them  at  the  mercy  of  every  idle 
report  of  ignorance  or  enmity. 

"But  it  was  then  distinctly  avowed  by  those  who  most  strongly 
opposed  the  resolution,  that  they  would  urge  the  Convention  to  act, 
whenever  any  responsible  persons  would  affix  their  names  to  written 
charges  involving  criminality. 

"  Two  succeeding  Annual  Conventions  of  this  Diocese  were  held 
without  a  renewal  of  the  subject.  The  Churchmen  of  New  Jersey 
had  a  right  to  suppose  that  the  intent  to  institute  a  canonical  inquiry 
was  abandoned. 

"  On  the  17th  of  March,  1852,  a  Special  Convention  was  held.  It 
was  called  to  consider  and  express  its  judgment  upon  the  subject  of 
a  letter  addressed  by  three  Right  Reverend  Prelates  to  the  Bishop  of 
the  Diocese.  Restricted  by  the  terms  of  the  call,  and  a  Canon  of 
the  Church  in  this  Diocese,  to  action  upon  this  definite  matter,  the 
Convention  could  go  no  further  than  to  declare  its  continued  con- 


(    29    ) 

fidence  in  the  upriglitness  of  the  Bishop,  and  '  to  affirm,  on  behalf 
of  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese,  that  it  had  ever  been  ready  to  in- 
vestigate charges  duly  made  and  presented,' 

"  It  is  unquestionable  that  the  Conventions  were  not  called  upon 
by  any  provision  of  any  law,  to  institute  an  inquiry  until  the 
allegations  were  presented  in  a  formal,  definite  shape.  It  is  un- 
deniable, that  to  have  volunteered  such  an  inquiry  without  that 
jire requisite,  would  have  been  unjust,  unprecedented  and  unbe- 
coming. It  is  equally  clear,  that  when  charges,  duly  attested  and 
vouched  for,  were  exhibited,  the  duty  became  manifest  and  imper- 
ative. They  were  called  to  perform  it,  as  well  for  the  redemption 
of  their  plighted  faith,  as  for  the  fulfilment  of  their  canonical  obli- 
gation. At  that  Special  Convention,  held  on  the  17th  March,  1852, 
when  that  body  were  thus  shut  up  from  the  consideration  of  all 
matters  but  the  one  which  had  been  mentioned  in  the  call,  a  solemn 
pledge  was  given  that  an  investigation  should  be  had.  The  Annual 
Convention  was  to  assemble  on  the  26th  of  May,  when  they  would 
have  an  opportunity  to  redeem  the  pledge.  Yet,  it  is  worthy  of 
remark,  that  that  pledge  was  not  regarded ;  and  that  before  the  time 
for  the  assembling  of  Convention,  action  was  taken  to  procure  a  trial. 
We  feel  that  herein  a  wrong  was  done  to  the  Diocese  of  which  she 
may  well  complain. 

"In  this  connection  we  may  also  refer  to  the  language  of  the  first 
letter  which  was  addressed  by  the  three  Presenting  Bishops  to  Bishop 
Doane.  They  say,  with  justice,  and  in  strict  accordance  with  the 
meaning  of  the  Canons,  and  the  spirit  of  all  ancient  law,  that  '  it  is 
only  when  a  Diocesan  Convention  refuses  to  institute  inquiry, 
(which  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  has  never  done,)  or  neglects 
to  do  it  for  too  long  a  j^eriod,  they  can  be  expected  to  interfere. 
Kow,  the  only  period  which  elapsed,  after  the  charges  were  first 
brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Convention  in  such  a  form  that  they 
could  entertain  them,  till  the  investigation  was  begun,  was,  from  the 
Special  Convention  in  March  to  the  Annual  Convention  in  May ! 
Could  the  case  then  have  arisen,  in  which,  because  of  our  '  too  long 
neMect,'  others  were  called  on  to  interfere  ?  It  is  evident  that  it  had 
not,  and  the  Diocese  is  so  far  ivithout  fault. 

"In  accordance  with  their  duty  and  their  pledge,  the  Convention 
which  assembled  on  the  26th  May,  having  learned  from  the  Address 
of  their  Diocesan  that  charges  were  preferred  against  him,  not  only 
in  the  paper  which  was  sent  originally  with  the  first  letter,  to  which 
we  have  referred,  but  in  a  second  paper,  which  purported  to  be  a 


(    30    ) 

Presentment  of  Bisliop  Doane,  did  promptly  adopt,  among  otlier  acts, 
the  following  j)reamble  and  resolution  : 

"  Wliereas,  The  exhibition  of  charges,  in  a  paper  signed  by  three 
Bishops  of  the  Church,  justifies  this  Convention,  consistently  with 
its  avowed  principles,  to  proceed  in  the  matter,  and  furnishes  the 
first  and  only  occasion  on  which  any  Convention  of  New  Jersey 
has  had  the  opportunity  of  exercising  its  solemn  duty  and  clear 
right,  under  the  Canon  for  the  trial  of  Bishops,  to  investigate,  in 
the  first  instance,  accusations  against  the  Bishop ; 

''And  lohereas,  This  Convention,  while  it  reaffirms  the  entire  confi- 
dence in  the  purity  and  integrity  of  the  Bishop,  which  it  has  hereto- 
fore declared,  is  conscious  of  the  grievous  wrong  and  ill  consequences 
of  keeping  such  charges  hanging  over  him  and  the  Diocese :  therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  a  Committee  of  seven  lay  members  of  this  Con- 
vention be  appointed,  by  ballot,  on  open  nomination,  to  make  a 
full  investigation  of  all  the  charges  contained  in  the  aforesaid  paper ; 
that  the  Committee  proceed  with  diligence  in  the  discharge  of  its 
duty,  and  that  it  report  to  an  adjourned  meeting  of  this  Convention. 

"  The  Eeport  of  this  Committee  was  presented  to  the  Convention 
of  the  Diocese  on  the  14th  of  July  last,  was  accepted,  and  resolu- 
tions were  adopted,  of  which  the  following  are  copies : 

"  Besolved,  That  the  result  of  the  investigation  and  the  evidence 
now  laid  before  the  Convention  renew  and  strengthen  the  confi- 
dence heretofore  expressed  in  the  integrity  of  the  Bishop  of  this 
Diocese,  and  in  our  opinion,  fully  exculpate  him  from  any  charge 
of  crime  or  immorality  made  against  him. 

"Resolved,  That  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  has  now  fulfilled 
the  duty  which  previous  Conventions  have  expressed  their  readi- 
ness to  fulfil,  of  making  a  full,  searching  and  honest  inquiry  into 
any  allegations  against  the  Bishop  when  formally  brought  before 
it  upon  definite  charges;  and  we  appeal  to  the  Church  at  large 
to  ratify  our  declaration  that  it  has  been  performed  faithfully  and 
in  the  fear  of  God. 

"  The  resolution  first  herein  stated,  and  under  which  we  address 
you,  was  also  then  passed. 

"  We  have  presented  this  historical  detail  of  the  action  of  the 
Conventions  of  New  Jersey  as  essential  to  understand  the  views 
we  will  now  offer  as  to  her  legal  and  canonical  rights  and  position. 


(    31     ) 

"  We  submit  to  you,  as  a  clear  proposition,  that  these  proceedings 
of  the  Convention  were,  under  the  Canon  for  the  trial  of  a  Bishop, 
entirely  and  strictly  legal. 

"  The  power  conferred  upon  a  Convention  to  present,  involves  the 
authority  to  make  every  necessary  investigation,  in  order  to  guide 
the  judgment  and  conscience  of  the  members  to  a  right  decision. 
This  investigation,  thus  inherently  within  its  province,  may  be 
conducted  by  a  delegation  from  the  body  as  well  as  by  that  body  at 
large.  The  results  and  the  acts  of  such  subsidiary  Committee  be- 
come by  adoption  those  of  the  Convention ;  and  the  decision  and 
judgment  of  the  latter  are  entitled  to  the  same  weight  as  if  every 
piece  of  evidence  had  been  heard  and  every  act  of  the  Committee 
had  before  it. 

"  Now,  Canon  III.  of  1844  secures  to  the  Convention  of  the  Dio- 
cese to  which  the  accused  Bishop  belongs,  the  right  to  make  pre- 
sentment whenever  the  Convention  shall  determine  by  a  two-thirds 
vote  of  each  Order  that  their  Bishop  has  committed  any  of  the  of- 
fences named  in  the  Canon  and  should  be  put  upon  his  trial  thereon. 

"  This  law  of  the  Church  has  two  objects  in  view.  First,  to  grant 
the  power  of  presentment  to  the  Diocese ;  Second,  to  guard  and 
control  that  power,  so  as  to  prevent  hasty,  partial  or  doubtful 
presentment.  To  these  objects  we  desire  particularly  to  call  the 
attention  of  this  Court.  The  mode  and  manner,  the  time  when,  by 
whose  authority,  and  under  what  facts  and  circumstances,  a  free 
man  may  be  put  upon  trial  for  crime,  lie  at  the  foundation  of  all 
just  laws  affecting  life,  liberty  and  character.  All  free  govern- 
ments guard  this  initiatory  point  in  criminal  proceedings  with 
scrupulous  care.  They  will  not  place  the  lowest  citizen  under  the 
ordeal  of  trial  until  he  be  solemnly  charged  with  guilt  by  responsi- 
ble legal  authority.  Any  thing  short  of  this  would  be  but  to  sport 
with  the  lives  and  character  of  their  people,  making  a  trial  but  a 
cruel  experiment  upon  the  innocence  of  the  accused.  There  have 
been  times,  both  in  Church  and  in  State,  when  this  important  prin- 
ciple was  disregarded ;  when,  upon  the  mere  rumour  or  suspicion 
of  crime,  men  were  suddenly  brought  to  trial  and  compelled  to 
pass  through  the  inquisition  of  fire  and  water  to  prove  by  the 
quantity  of  endurance  the  strength  and  virtue  of  their  character — 
times,  Avhen,  instead  of  the  diligent  inquiry  and  the  true  present- 
ment, rumour,  allegation  or  public  opinion  constituted  the  grounds 
upon  which  the  accused  was  forced  to  undergo  the  expense,  the 
hazards  and  the  contumely  of  a  public  trial.     To  guard  against 


(    32    ) 

enormities  sacli  as  these,  tlie  Canon  to  which  we  have  referred  was 
enacted.  Its  provisions  protect  ahke  the  character  of  the  Bishop, 
the  rights  of  the  Diocese,  and  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  Church 
at  large.  Under  this  law  of  the  Church  the  Diocese  of  jSTew  Jersey 
has  acted.  It  has  performed  the  duty  imposed  upon  it  as  the  Pre- 
senting Body.  It  has  investigated  the  charges.  It  has  considered 
the  question  of  presentment,  and  it  has  pronounced  its  judgment 
thereon.  The  legal  effect  of  these  proceedings  is,  that  the  Present- 
ing Body,  the  Diocese,  has  adjudicated  upon  the  question  of  present- 
ment, and  determined  that  there  is  no  cause  to  present  the  Bishop 
for  trial  upon  any  of  the  charges  which  were  preferred  against 
him  at  that  time. 

"  The  Diocese  of  ITew  Jersey  having  thus  discharged  this  high 
official  duty  in  obedience  to  a  Canon  of  the  Church,  and  in  a  matter 
involving  the  good  name  of  the  Bishop  and  the  integrity  of  her 
members,  now  claims  that  her  action  and  judgment  in  the  premises 
should  be  received  with  that  fall  faith  and  credit  which  the  law 
gives  to  proceedings  of  a  Court  acting  upon  matter  legally  submitted 
to  its  discretion  and  judgment.  That  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey 
has  the  right  to  ask  for  this  confidence  in  its  proceedings,  will  be 
granted,  when  it  is  considered  what  importance  is  given  to  these  pro- 
ceedings by  the  law  of  the  Church. 

"  How,  and  by  whom,  a  Bishop  is  to  be  presented  for  trial,  is  no 
idle  ceremony — no  mere  form  to  get  a  party  into  Court.  It  is  a 
procedure  involving  high  duties  and  deep  responsibilities.  The 
Presenters  are  not  common  informers ;  they  are  the  Church  of  the 
Diocese ;  the  Laity  and  the  Clergy,  in  public  Convention  assem- 
bled ;  representing  every  parish,  and  speaking  for  every  member  of 
the  Church.  The  Bishop  is  the  party  to  be  presented  for  trial. 
His  character,  his  virtues  and  his  vices,  are  the  subjects  to  be 
investigated ;  and  the  Church  at  large,  its  purity  and  character,  to 
be  affected  by  the  result.  To  this  Body,  thus  constituted  and  thus 
acting,  the  law  of  the  Church  has  intrusted  the  important  duty  of 
presenting  a  Bishop  for  trial.  Again,  the  Canon  in  conferring  the 
power  to  present,  gives  to  each  Diocese  the  right  to  determine  for 
itself  the  question  of  presentment  or  no  presentment,  upon  the 
charges  made.  No  other  body  in  the  Church  can  deprive  the 
Diocese  of  this  right  or  control  its  exercise ;  neither  can  the  dili- 
gence or  the  honesty  of  the  Diocese,  in  this  present  matter,  be 
questioned,  for  the  purpose  of  nullifying  its  legal  procedures. 

"The  law  has  clothed  us  with  the  right  of  presentment,  and 


(    33    ) 

intrusted  us  with  the  duty  of  performing  it.     We  have  exercised 
this  right,  and  we  have  performed  the  duty. 

"  We  have  performed  it  in  obedience  to  the  law  of  the  Church, 
and  according  to  its  pure  spirit  and  meaning ;  and  we  now  claim 
that  our  action  in  the  matter  should  be  respected.  In  our  judg- 
ment, it  is  the  obvious  intention  of  the  Canon  to  make  the  Conven- 
tion the  leading  and  controlling  Presenting  Power.  For  weighty 
reasons,  the  Diocese  is  placed  between  its  Bishop  and  the  bar  of 
this  Court.  The  way  to  the  trial  is  through  the  Convention. 
True,  there  is  another  path  to  this  Court  pointed  out  in  the  Canon, 
designed,  it  may  be,  for  cases  of  heresy ;  but  it  is  on  all  sides  con- 
fessed, that  it  should  only  be  taken  from  necessity.  The  plainly 
marked  course — the  guides,  the  precautions  and  the  directions — 
pointed  out  by  the  law,  most  clearly  indicate  which  of  these  two 
ways  to  trial  should  have  the  preference  in  the  first  instance.  But, 
when  it  is  shown,  as  it  has  been  in  this  case,  that  the  way  to  pre- 
sentment through  the  Diocese  has  been  free  to  all  responsible 
accusers  of  the  Bishop,  and  the  doors  of  the  Convention  thrown 
open  for  the  reception  of  their  charges ;  that  such  of  those  charges 
as  were  then  made,  have,  in  fact,  been  received  and  investigated ; 
and  that  the  Convention  has  solemnly  determined  that  their  Bishop 
ought  not,  on  those  charges,  to  be  put  upon  trial ;  the  prior  rights 
of  the  Convention  can  no  longer  be  questioned,  without  impeaching 
the  legality  and  purity  of  its  proceedings. 

"  But,  in  vindicating  the  legality  of  these  proceedings,  we  need  not 
assert  an  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  a  Convention,  to  present  upon 
charges  of  the  nature  of  those  in  question.  We  need  not  even 
insist  upon  the  theory  that  the  right  resides  primarily  in  that  Body ; 
and  that  it  is  only  in  case  of  its  neglect  or  unfaithfulness,  that  the 
right  of  three  Bishops  arises.  Cogent  as  are  the  reasons  in  support 
of  this  doctrine,  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  case  we  would  present  to 
you  that  it  should  be  adopted ;  we  only  ask  now  (as  touching  the 
charges  which  have  been  examined)  a  recognition  of  the  principle 
of  a  concurrent  jurisdiction  in  three  Bishops  and  a  Convention. 
We  have  never  heard  of  a  construction  of  the  Canon  which  gives  a 
primary  right  to  three  Bishops  to  present ;  unless,  therefore,  the 
primary  right  exist  in  a  Convention,  (as  there  is  great  reason  to  con- 
clude it  does,)  it  must  be  concurrent. 

"  Now,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  presentment  previously  made  by 
the  Bishops  interposes  a  bar  to  the  exercise  of  this  right,  which,  at 
least,  is  concurrent.    No  action  had  been  taken  under  that  present- 

8 


(    84    ) 

ment,  except  the  summons  to  the  Bishops  of  the  Church  to  attend 
at  the  time  and  place  mentioned.  No  Court  was  in  existence  when 
these  proceedings  were  instituted,  prosecuted  or  concluded.  No 
Court  could  exist,  until  seven  Bishops  had  assembled.  "We  know  of 
no  analogy  in  civil  proceedings  which  would  prohibit  this  action 
of  the  Convention,  until,  at  least,  a  Court  was  instituted  before 
which  an  issue  could  be  joined  and  a  trial  had. 

"  The  Eecord  of  the  Committee  of  Inquiry  which  we  have  laid 
before  you,  will  speak  far  better  than  any  language  of  our  own, 
of  the  labour,  the  fidelity,  the  solicitude  for  truth  with  which  the 
investigation  was  conducted,  and  cannot  but  entitle  it  to  your  con- 
fidence and  respect. 

"  Before  a  tribunal  thus  sanctioned  by  the  Canon,  thus  within  the 
scope  of  the  legislation  of  the  Church — open  to  every  accuser, 
courting  every  source  of  information,  invoking  every  witness  to 
attend  it — before  this  legitimate  and  impartial  tribunal  have  these 
charges  been  sifted  and  pronounced  unfounded.  And  solemnly 
and  deliberately  has  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese,  the  Grand 
Inquest  of  the  Church  therein,  passed  upon  them,  pronouncing 
them  false  or  frivolous ;  and  in  the  fear  of  God  and  true  allegiance 
to  his  Church,  declaring  that  there  is  no  ground  for  a  presentment 
upon  these  or  any  of  these  allegations. 

"  What  is  there  to  abate  the  effect  of  this  decision  ?  Not  that  some 
witnesses,  though  called  upon,  have  declined  to  testify.  Their  silence, 
if  not  proving  their  inability  to  inculpate,  at  least  supplies  no  war- 
rant for  a  further  inquiry.  Not  that  the  parties  on  whose  statements 
this  presentment  was  made  have  refused  to  attempt  their  corrobora- 
tion. We  claim  here  the  benefit  of  the  rule  of  law  and  justice,  that 
when  a  party  has  had  full  opportunity,  in  a  competent  tribunal,  to 
sustain  his  allegations,  and  neglects  it,  he  shall  be  thereafter  pre- 
cluded. And  we  submit  it  to  you  and  to  the  decision  of  impartial 
men  in  the  Church  every  where,  that  the  lay  accusers  by  whom 
these  charges  were  made,  and  who  were  not  only  invited  to  appear, 
but  were  ofiered  by  the  Committee  the  largest  liberty  of  cross-ex- 
amining those  whose  testimony  should  be  taken,  (even  if  they 
doubted  sincerely  the  legality  or  power  of  such  a  Committee,)  were 
bound  to  appear,  to  help  in  the  discovery  of  the  truth ;  and  in  the 
hope  that  his  character  might  be  cleared,  they  should  have  felt  con- 
strained to  appear  by  the  law  of  charity.  It  was  not  pretended 
that  if  they  had  gone  before  the  Committee  they  would  have  thereby 
surrendered  their  right  to  appear  in  this  Court.    No  harm  could 


(    35    ) 

then  Lave  resulted  from  their  obeying  the  summons;  and  their  at- 
tendance might  have  resulted  in  the  clearing  away  of  their  doubts, 
and  the  removing  of  prejudice  from  their  minds. 

'*  Nor  can  it  with  reason  be  said  that  the  investigation  so  made, 
was  hnt  j^artial,  and  that  the  effect  was  thereby  abated.  We  main- 
tain the  reverse.  The  Presentment  contained  all  the  charges.  Even 
more  were  included,  no  doubt,  than  they  ever  expected  to  prove. 
Every  couv.t  in  an  indictment  is  seldom  sustained.  And  these 
charges  were  not  made  xmder  oath  !  Their  authors  were  not  respon- 
sible in  the  eye  of  the  law.  They  might,  they  even  now  may, 
refuse  to  appear,  and  yet  that  Presentment  which  contained  all  the 
matter  that  in  this  Court  they  could  be  permitted  to  prove  was 
treated  by  the  Committee  as  if  every  charge  had  been  sworn  to,  and 
would  be  sworn  to  again ;  and  they  were  met  by  more  than  asser- 
tions,  such  as  the  Presentments  contain — by  testimony  which  was 
carefully  taken,  and  every  witness  put  upon  oath  !  They  confronted 
mere  declarations  with  the  oaths  of  unimpeachable,  responsible  men  ! 
We  maintain  that,  in  treating  these  charges  exactly  as  if  they  were 
sworn  to  when  the  accusers  refused  to  appear  and  be  sworn,  and 
they  had  no  assurance  that  any  accuser  but  one  would  ever  consent 
to  be  sworn,  was  doing  more  than  justice  required — was  showing 
partiality  to  the  accusers ;  that,  by  the  rule  of  the  Gospel,  the  charges 
might  have  been  promptly  dismissed,  when  no  man  appeared  to 
condemn  him  ;  and  that  wrong,  if  wrong  has  been  any  where  done, 
has  been  done  to  the  accused. 

"  And  as  to  the  Eight  Reverend  Presenters,  it  is  most  true  that 
the  Canon  unavoidably  treats  them  as  parties,  and  regards  them  in 
some  measure  as  contestants ;  but  it  is  the  true  construction  of  that 
Canon — it  is  the  demand  of  justice  as  well  as  the  dictate  of  charity, 
to  assume  that  they  are  seeking  for  truth  and  not  for  victory ;  and 
that  your  conviction  that  this  Presentment  should  be  dismissed  will 
be  hailed  with  satisfaction  by  them. 

"  We  claim,  then,  and  submit,  that  the  refusal  of  the  Convention 
of  New  Jersey  to  present  the  Bishop,  after  this  open  and  fair  inves- 
tigation into  the  truth  of  these  charges,  is  equivalent  to  a  dismissal 
of  a  Presentment  by  a  lawful  court. 

"  We  mean  not  to  defend  this  position  upon  grounds  essential  to 
make,  it,  in  a  civil  tribunal,  a  perfect  plea  in  bar.  We  mean  to  rest 
it  upon  the  great  truth  of  law  and  equity,  that  one  full,  free  and 
honest  inquiry  into  charges  involving  fame  or  rights,  is  sufficient 
to  meet  the  demands  of  public  justice  or  of  private  complaint.     Of 


(    36    ) 

this  high  truth  the  plea  in  bar,  with  its  technicality,  is  but  a  nar- 
rowed exposition  and  proof. 

"  There  is  one  answer,  and  we  believe  there  is  but  one,  to  be 
offered  against  the  validity  and  force  of  this  decision  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

"  It  is,  that  this  conclusion  has  been  obtained  by  indirect  and  im- 
proper influences,  from  a  Committee  and  Convention  determined  to 
exculpate  the  Bishop,  and  resolved  to  refuse  an  honest  hearing  to 
his  accusers. 

"  We  boldly  meet  and  repel  this  imputation.  We  beg  you  to  look 
upon  the  names  of  the  large  body  of  Clergymen,  faithful  and  devoted 
ministers  of  God,  whom  it  condemns.  We  ask  you  to  consider  the 
long  list  of  honoured  Laymen  of  New  Jersey  whom  it  brands.  We 
point  you  proudly  to  the  list  of  that  Committee — to  the  names, 
which  every  where  among  us,  and  as  far  as  they  are  known,  are 
pledges  of  intelligence,  of  honour,  of  uprightness  and  of  truth,  by 
which  it  is  adorned ! 

"  We  insist  there  is  no  other  alternative,  between  declaring  that  this 
action  of  the  Convention  has  been  true  and  righteous,  or  stamping  the 
reputation  of  these  men  with  an  indelible  mark  of  unsurpassed  infamy. 
And  we  cannot,  since  only  this  alternative  remains,  since  the  rejection 
by  this  Court  of  their  proceedings  must  involve  this  imputation  on 
us  all — we  cannot,  we  ought  not,  in  duty  to  the  Diocese  we  repre- 
sent, refrain  from  the  comparison  of  the  number  of  complamants,  and 
of  the  members  of  both  Orders  of  Convention  by  whom  these  pro- 
ceedings have  been  instituted,  and  by  whom  they  are  approved. 
Surely,  where  the  odds  are  so  tremendous,  as  the  records  of  the 
Conventions  show,  and  the  majority 'are  living  in  the  full  commu- 
nion of  the  Church,  and  are  beyond  the  taint  of  a  reproach,  sincerity, 
impartiality  and  truth  are  quite  as  likely  to  be  found  among  the 
many  as  to  be  appropriated  by  the  few !  Allowing  for  the  weak- 
ness and  the  ignorance  of  some,  there  still  must  be  some  virtue 
among  them  all.  We  press  one  thought  with  earnestness :  it  is, 
that,  while  you  may  allow  the  accusers  to  have  been  misled  by  other 
men,  if  the  alternative  shall  be  adopted  that  these  proceedings 
were  designed  to  screen  the  guilty  from  the  punishment  he  merited, 
there  is  no  escape  for  zis,  for  the  Convention,  for  the  Committee  of 
Investigation,  for  '  the  Church  of  the  Living  God'  in  our  State ! 

"  They  came  indeed  to  this  inquiry  with  a  deep  sense  of  the  grati- 
tude due  to  the  Bishop  for  diffusing  the  blessings  of  religious  educa- 
tion.    They  came  with  a  strong  desire  that  he  might  pass  through 


(    37    ) 

the  ordeal  unharmed.  We  will  not  insult  your  Christian  hearts  by 
the  supposition  that  this  wish  is  not  as  ardent  in  your  own  bosoms 
as  in  theirs.  But  if  this  feeling  be  a  disqualification  for  doing 
justice,  then  you  must  confine  the  circle  of  his  judges  to  the  ignorant 
or  the  unfriendly. 

"  But,  after  all  that  has  been  done,  the  cry  of  some  is  that  he 
should  be  tried,  and  tried  upon  the  very  charges  that  have  been  in- 
vestigated and  are  found  to  be  untrue.  Apart  from  its  injustice, 
there  is  no  advantage  we  can  see.  The  charges  (or  at  least  all  those 
to  which  we  now  refer)  can  only  at  the  most  be  backed  by  those 
who  make  them  under  oath  ;  and  the  testimony  on  the  part  of  the 
accused  is  already  taken  under  oath,  disproving  by  witnesses  as  un- 
impeachable, and  by  dates,  and  facts,  and  circumstantial  evidence 
(which  never  lies)  the  charges  which  are  made. 

"  The  cry  of  some  is, '  Let  him  be  tried !  Let  him  clear  himself 
of  these  charges  of  crime  and  immorality,  and  purge  the  Church  of 
the  odium  they  cast  upon  it !' 

"  Those  who  believe,  without  investigation,  that  our  Bishop  is 
guilty  of  these  charges,  should  listen  to  these  cries.  Those  who  love 
litigation  and  relish  the  bitter  strifes  of  a  public  prosecution  will  be 
moved  by  them  and  long  for  the  trial  of  a  Bishop. 

*'  The  morbid  sentiment  of  the  age  may  yearn  for  the  exciting  per- 
formance; and  bigotry  and  fanaticism,  jealousy  and  malice  may  be 
gratified  by  seeing  a  man  put  upon  the  rack  of  trial  for  the  purpose 
of  satisfying  public  opinion.  But  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  can- 
not permit  itself  to  be  moved  by  such  influences.  We  cannot  pre- 
sent our  Bishop  upon  those  charges,  because  we  have  found  them  to 
be  untrue.  We  cannot  consent  to  his  trial  upon  them,  because  we 
are  satisfied  of  his  innocence.  We  believe  that  presentments  and 
indictments  are  intended  for  the  guilty,  not  for  the  innocent ;  and 
although  they  do  not  always  lead  to  conviction  and  punishment, 
they  seldom  fail  to  leave  a  stigma  on  the  character  of  the  accused. 
But  there  are  other  and  higher  considerations  than  personal  in- 
justice to  our  Bishop  as  a  man,  which  make  it  the  duty  of  the 
Diocese  of  New  Jersey  to  protest  against  this  trial.  The  accused  is 
our  Bishop,  our  Father  in  the  Church,  connected  by  all  those  holy 
and  sacred  ties  by  which  God  and  the  Church  have  bound  us  together. 
His  character  and  his  reputation  for  good  or  for  evil  must  reflect 
upon  the  Diocese. 

"  For  nearly  twenty  years  his  walk  and  conversation  have  been 
familiar  to  us.     We  know  his  virtues,  and  are  not  blind  to  his 


(    38    ) 

faults.  "We  respect  him  as  a  man.  We  love  him  as  our  Bishop. 
To  relations  so  paternal,  to  knowledge  so  intimate  and  associations 
so  sacred  and  responsible,  the  Church  has  wisely  intrusted,  in  cases 
of  presentment,  as  well  the  character  of  her  Bishops  as  the  rights  of 
her  respective  Dioceses  over  which  they  preside.  Under  these 
legitimate  and  sacred  influences  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  has 
examined  the  charges  brought  against  her  Bishop  and  found  them 
to  be  untrue.  Our  confidence  in  him  is  unabated  and  his  usefulness 
among  us  undiminished ;  and  we  appear  before  this  Court  to-day 
to  say  to  you  and  to  the  Church,  that  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey 
has  justly,  fairly  and  legally  examined  into  this  matter,  and  '  finds 
no  fault  in  this  man  touching  those  things  whereof  they  accuse  him.' 
And  yet  again,  if  the  question  is  asked,  why  the  Convention  of 
New  Jersey,  with  a  faith  so  firm  in  the  purity  of  the  Bishop,  seek  to 
arrest  the  proceedings  of  this  Presentment,  we  reply  that  they  have 
the  rights  of  the  Diocese  to  sustain,  and  the  character  of  its  Clergy  and 
Laity  to  defend.  Placed  by  the  Church  as  watchmen  and  guardians 
of  the  purity  and  peace  of  the  Diocese,  with  at  least  equal  power 
and  closer  personal  solicitude,  their  duty  in  this  case  has  never  been 
neglected ;  their  duty  has  been  earnestly  met  at  the  first  moment 
when  conscience  or  law  permitted  them  to  act.  The  Diocese  of 
New  Jersey  has  searched  into  these  accusations.  The  Diocese  of 
New  Jersey  has  pronounced  a  verdict  of  acquittal  and  now  stands 
before  you  to  plead  that  verdict  in  all  its  canonical  force  and  its 
moral  weight ;  to  present  it  as  the  expression  of  her  deep  and  heart- 
felt conviction  that  enough  has  been  done,  so  far  as  concerns  the 
charges  that  have  been  examined,  to  meet  every  claim  of  law  or 
truth,  and  that  for  you  to  proceed  with  a  trial  would  be  unjust  to 
the  Bishop,  injurious  to  the  Church  at  large  and  degrading  to 
herself. 

"  Eight  Eeverend  Fathers, 

"  So  much  the  undersigned  submit,  in  the  discharge  of  their 
important  duty,  touching  those  accusations  which  the  presentment, 
as  originally  made,  contained.  We  are  informed  officially  that 
another  paper,  which  is  called  '  a  new  Presentment'  of  our  Bishop, 
has  been  served  upon  him,  and  that  the  Court  have  had  another 
summons  to  assemble  at  the  same  time  and  place,  and  at  a  given 
hour. 

"  We  will  not  speak  of  our  surprise.     We  will  not  raise  the  ques- 
tion why  was  this  new  paper  served.     We  will  not  stop  to  ask  when 


(    39    ) 

it  was  served.  "We  care  not  even  to  insist,  as  well  we  might,  that 
the  serving  of  the  new  Presentment  is  a  practical  abandonment 
of  the  charges  in  the  old.  We  will  not  urge  that  the  renewal 
of  these  charges  in  the  new  Presentment,  after  the  investigation 
they  have  had,  with  only  the  change  of  some  expressions,  the 
omission  of  some  instance  or  the  addition  of  some  case,  (by  which 
sameness  of  the  papers  is  not  altered,)  and  the  aj')pending  of  some 
other  charges,  which  must  have  been  well  known  to  the  accusers 
when  the  first  Presentment  was  prepared,  looks  like  an  effort  to 
avoid  the  difficulty,  that  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  has  investigated 
and  adjudicated  upon  them.  We  will  not  dwell  upon  the  fact  that 
the  renewal  of  tliose  charges  after  the  investigation  that  was  had,  is 
a  direct  impeachment  of  the  fairness  with  which  the  investigation 
was  conducted,  or  of  the  right  of  the  Diocese  of  the  accused  to 
institute  examination. 

"  We  will  not  ask,  after  the  argument  that  has  been  made,  whe- 
ther this  change  in  the  Presentment  is  canonical — is  usual — is  legal. 
We  will  not  ask  what  Court  this  is ;  the  one  to  try  the  Bishop  of 
New  Jersey  on  the  old  Presentment,  or  the  Court  to  try  him  on  the 
new.  We  will  not  ask  whether  both  Presentments  shall  be  tried ; 
or,  if  but  one,  which  shall  be  heard :  or,  if  a  man  is  to  be  twice 
tried  (which  is  to  be  the  case  if  both  the  Courts  assemble,  and  the 
Presentments  are  both  heard)  for  the  identical  offences :  or,  if  aban- 
doning the  old  specifications,  which  are  the  greater  portion  of  the 
new,  a  Court  has  liberty  to  try  a  part  and  leave  a  part  untried. 
And  we  forbear  all  comment  on  the  nature  of  this  movement,  and 
on  the  disrespect  which  has  been  paid  by  the  originators  of  these 
charges  to  the  most  solemn  action  of  an  independent  Diocese  of 
members  of  the  Church  of  God. 

"  What  has  been  read  to  you,  touching  the  first  Presentment,  ap- 
plies to  all  the  charges  in  the  new  which  are  identical  with  those 
examined ;  and  forms  (together  with  testimony  which  was  taken, 
and  which  we  have  the  honour  to  supply  for  your  inspection)  our 
answer  to  those  charges,  whether  in  the  old  or  in  the  new ;  and 
the  verdict  of  the  Convention  of  New  Jersc}',  as  regards  those  things 
which  at  that  time  had  been  preferred.  The  change  in  the  mere 
style  of  the  Presentment  cannot  revive  the  crime  which  was  alleged, 
nor  destroy  the  value  of  the  refutation. 

"  And,  (as  respects  whatever  there  is  new,)  in  the  name  of  New 
Jersey,  in  the  name  of  its  Diocesan  Convention,  as  representatives 
of  its  collective  people,  and  its  piety  and  wisdom,  we  ask  and  claim 


(    40    ) 

that  you  forbear  to  enter  on  this  trial  at  the  instance  of  Bishop 
Doane's  accusers,  until  the  Diocese  now  summoned  to  assemble  in 
Convention,  shall  have  had  the  opportunity  to  do  its  duty  in  the 
full  investigation  of  the  latest  charges,  as  well  as  of  the  first.  We 
take  it  that  the  object  is  the  discovery  of  truth,  and  that  this  is  of 
more  moment  than  the  process  by  which  it  is  obtained.  No  rights 
are  to  be  sacrificed  by  the  adjournment  of  the  Court ;  but  rights 
essential  to  the  liberty  of  Christian  freemen  must  be  disregarded 
if  our  claim  shall  not  be  heard.  We  hope  that  every  one  of  you 
would  willingly  be  spared  the  painful  duty  of  the  trial  of  a  Brother. 

"  We  make  this  claim  respecting  whatsoever  may  be  new  in  the 
Presentment  on  the  following  grounds : 

"  If  the  interpretation  of  the  Canon,  which  harmonizes  with  the 
dictates  of  sound  wisdom  and  with  the  spirit  of  all  ancient  laws, 
shall  be  allowed,  that  to  the  Diocese  belongs  the  right  of  primary 
investigations  in  questions  of  morality,  though  not,  perhaps,  so 
strictly  in  instances  of  heresy,  our  claim  is  good.  It  is  as  sound 
concerning  the  new  charges  as  the  old.  Upon  this  theory,  the 
refusal  to  allow  the  Diocese  the  opportunity  will  be  tantamount  to 
the  rejection  of  her  claim,  and  the  disregarding  of  her  past  investi- 
gation, and  of  the  verdict  she  has  given. 

"  We  claim  it  on  the  ground  that  it  has  been  conceded  by  the 
Presenting  Bishops  in  their  letter.  If  when  the  charges  in  the  old 
Presentment  were  first  made,  they  felt  that  only  when  the  Diocese 
refused,  or  else  delayed  'too  long,'  or  else  imperfectly  performed  the 
duty  of  investigation,  they  could  be  called  upon  to  interfere,  it  is  as 
true  of  all  that  has  been  added  now.  No  time  has  yet  been  given ! 
Eespecting  these  new  matters,  it  cannot  be  pretended  that  the 
Diocese  has  been  unwilling,  or  procrastinating,  or  unfair.  Give  her 
the  opportunity,  and  test  her  character.  See  if  she  will  refuse,  delay 
or  deal  unfairly.    She  claims  it  at  your  hands. 

"  Lastly,  the  case  is  one.  In  point  of  time  the  alleged  oifences  are 
not  new ;  they  were  known  to  have  been  alleged  before,  by  those 
by  whom  they  are  preferred :  and  with  the  substance,  and  nearly 
all  the  words,  of  the  first  charges,  they  make  up  the  paper  to  which 
we  now  refer,  and  upon  which  they  ask  to  have  the  Bishop  tried. 
They  can  only  be  considered  as  a  part  of  the  same  case.  We  have, 
the  Diocese  already  has,  taken  the  case  in  hand.  The  Diocese 
alone,  then,  should  complete  it.  The  Convention  has  been  called. 
We  pledge  you  that  the  Churchmen  of  New  Jersey  will  recognise 
the  duty,  and  will  address  themselves  to  its  discharge. 


(    41     ) 

"  Right  Eeverend  Fathers, 

"  We  have  done  with  our  argument ;  almost  with  our  appeal. 

*'  Fathers, 

"  The  eye  of  God  is  on  us :  the  God  of  truth,  of  patience,  and 
of  charity ! 

"  Fathers, 

*'  We  have  no  other  aim  than  that  of  justice ;  no  other  object 
than  the  promotion  of  religion.  In  the  course  which  we  pursue, 
we  are  mindful  of  your  liberty,  and  are  not  forgetful  of  God's  glory. 

"  Fathers, 

"  We  recognise  your  Office  in  the  Church,  your  dignity,  your 
worth  and  your  responsibility.  And  until  the  voice  of  that  Con- 
vention which  is  summoned  can  be  heard,  with  profound  respect 
and  reverence,  and  in  the  name  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey 
which  we  are  called  to  represent,  we  ask  you  to  forbear. 

"  God  grant  you  grace  and  wisdom  so  to  act,  that  the  rights  of  all 
may  be  respected,  and  that  Christian  love  and  peace  may  be  pre- 
served. 

"  Saml.  L.  Southard.  "  Harry  Finch. 

"  James  A.  Williams.  "  Charles  W.  Rankin. 

"Elias  B.  D.  Ogden.  "Daniel  B.  Eyall. 

"J.  W.  Miller. 
"Camden,  New  Jersey,  7  October,  1852." 

On  motion  of  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia, 

Ordered,  That  the  Presenting  Bishops  have  leave  to  make  a 
written  reply  to  the  statement  from  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  and 
that,  for  this  purpose,  they  be  permitted  to  have  access  to  this 
Document. 

On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Maryland, 

Ordered,  That  the  Document  presented  by  the  Committee  of  the 
Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  containing  statements  to  which  allusion  was 
made  in  the  Address  just  read,  be  laid  upon  the  table  of  the 
Court. 

Ordered,  That,  when  this  Court  adjourns,  it  will  adjourn  to  meet 
on  Monday,  at  11  o'clock,  a.  m. 

The  Court  then  adjourned. 


(    42    ) 


Burlington,  October  11,  1852.  ) 
11  o'clock,  A.M.  ) 

The  Court  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  as  at  the  last  session. 

The  Session  was  opened  with  the  Litanj  and  prayers,  by  the 
President. 

The  Minutes  of  the  last  session  were  read  and  approved. 

Ordered,  That  when  the  Court  adjourns  this  day,  it  will  adjourn 
at  3  o'clock,  p.  M. 

Ordered,  That  the  Court  will  hereafter  hold  two  sessions  daily, 
viz.,  from  10|  o'clock,  A.  M.,  till  1^  o'clock,  p.  m.  ;  and  from  3 
o'clock,  till  5  J  o'clock,  p.  M. 

On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York, 

1.  Ordered,  That  no  Member  of  the  Court  shall  make  more  than 
one  argument  or  statement  of  views  on  any  question,  except  by 
permission  of  the  Court. 

2.  Ordered,  That,  in  deciding  all  questions  before  the  Court,  the 
opinion  of  the  Members  shall  be  given  in  the  order  of  seniority,  after 
the  President  shall  have  given  his  opinion. 

The  Presenting  Bishops  read  their  Statement,  in  reply  to  that  of 
the  Committee  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey. 

"  To  the  Bight  Reverend  the  Bishops  constituting  the  present  Court. 

"  Brethren, 

"  The  undersigned,  who  have  appeared  before  you  in  the 
most  painful  and  responsible  position  of  Presenters  of  our  Bro- 
ther, the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  for  a  trial  before  you,  feeling 
ourselves  called  upon,  by  all  the  imperative  considerations  of  solemn 
duty  to  God  and  His  Church  which  moved  us  to  that  act,  to  place 
on  your  record  a  reply  to  the  argument  which  you  have  permitted 
a  Committee  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  to  present,  would  now 
respectfully  solicit  your  attention  thereto. 

"  But  first  allow  us  to  say  that  we  deeply  realize  the  very  painful 


(    43    ) 

relation  to  this  Court,  in  which  our  presentment  has  placed  of 
necessity,  our  Brother,  the  Respondent  in  this  case ;  and  we  feel 
the  duty,  and  will  endeavour  most  truly  to  fulfil  it,  of  treating  the 
subject  in  hand  in  as  much  abstraction  from  him  personally,  and 
his  feelings,  as  its  just  argument  will  permit.  We  think  we  know 
enough  of  our  own  hearts  to  be  enabled  confidently  to  say  that  we 
entertain  no  other  than  the  kindest  feelings  towards  him ;  that  be- 
yond our  official  duty  as  Bishops  and  Presenters,  we  have  no  inter- 
est enlisted  in  the  further  prosecution  of  this  issue ;  that  to  see  him 
cleared,  by  a  faithful  sifting  of  evidence,  according  to  the  mode 
prescribed  by  the  Church,  from  the  charges  wc  have  felt  constrained 
to  bring,  so  that  he  and  the  honour  of  the  Church  may  be  vindi- 
cated in  the  eyes  of  all  well-judging  men,  would  be  to  us  the  same 
matter  of  joy  and  thankfulness,  that  it  would  be  to  all  of  you  ;  and 
consequently  that  if,  in  the  course  of  our  present  argument,  we 
should  seem  to  be  led  to  the  expression  of  thought,  or  the  use  of 
words,  more  painful  to  the  feelings  of  the  Respondent  than  the 
merits  of  the  subject  demand,  or  the  law  of  kindness  would  allow, 
it  is  our  mistake,  not  our  design ;  it  is  against,  not  in  accordance 
with  our  aim  and  effort.  With  these  preliminary  remarks,  we  beg 
to  place  before  the  Court  some  considerations,  exhibiting  the  ex- 
ceeding seriousness,  the  grave  responsibility,  the  critical  importance 
of  the  duty  to  which  you  are  now  called,  in  deciding  upon  the  ques- 
tion before  you.  When  the  request  was  made  to  you  that  the  Com- 
mittee, representing  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey, 
might  be  permitted  to  appear  at  your  bar,  and  present  a  written  ar- 
gument having  for  its  declared  object  the  persuading  the  Judges  in 
this  case  to  adopt  a  certain  interpretation  of  the  law  under  which 
alone  they  sit,  in  order  that  they  might  be  induced  to  dismiss  with- 
out trial  the  charges  we  have  brought  at  so  great  a  sacrifice  of  per- 
sonal feeling,  and  under  so  solemn  a  sense  of  duty  to  the  Church, 
we  felt  ourselves  called  on  to  resist  such  request  by  all  the  means 
canonically  within  our  reach.  We  urged  that  to  admit  them  and 
their  argument  was  against  the  provisions  of  the  law  under  which 
this  Court  is  constituted,  and  by  which  it  must  proceed ;  that  no 
parties  are  known  to  that  law,  and  consequently  none  can  lawfully 
appear  at  this  bar,  but  the  Judges,  the  Presenters,  and  the  Respond- 
ent; that  the  admission  of  any  other  to  influence  in  any  way  your 
decisions,  would  be  as  inconsistent  with  the  rules  and  usages  of 
Courts  of  analogous  jurisdiction,  and  with  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  jurisprudence,  as  with  the  terms  and  provisions  of  our 


(    44    ) 

Canon  law,  and  would  therefore  institute  a  precedent  of  the  most 
dangerous  character  to  the  future  discipline  of  the  Church.  But 
our  objections  were  overruled.  We  submitted  respectfully  to  the 
authority  of  the  Court.  The  Committee  was  admitted.  They  pre- 
sented and  read  a  document  previously  printed.  It  is  material  at 
this  stage  of  our  remarks  that  the  Court  should  bear  in  mind,  that 
a  part  of  the  argument  of  the  Committee  rests  upon  the  fact  of  a 
new  Presentment  having  been  made  after  the  Convention  of  New 
Jersey,  by  its  representatives,  had  investigated  the  charges  con- 
tained in  a  former  Presentment ;  that  the  determining  consideration 
which  led  us  to  make  that  new  Presentment  was  the  doubt,  to  say 
the  least,  resting  upon  the  legality  of  the  act  of  our  late  venerable 
Presiding  Bishop,  postponing  the  trial  of  the  former  from  the  time 
first  appointed,  to  a  later  day,  and  thus  making  doubtful  the  legali- 
ty of  a  Court  assembled  on  that  day.  The  Committee  place  much 
of  their  objections  upon  the  ground,  that  this  Presentment  is  a  new 
one.  The  Court  will  please  also  to  bear  in  mind,  that  not  only  was 
the  postponement  of  the  former  Presentment  so  entirely  against  our 
wishes  and  convictions  as  Presenters,  that  we  have  never  ceased  to 
complain  of  it ;  not  only  was  it  so  contrary  to  the  convenience  and 
arrangements  of  the  Bishops,  that  several  who  could  and  would 
have  attended  the  trial  at  the  first  appointed  time,  are  not  and  can- 
not be  in  attendance  now ;  but,  although  it  was  stated  by  the  late 
Presiding  Bishop  in  his  notice  of  the  postponement,  that  several 
Bishops  were  represented  to  him  as  desiring  the  postponement, 
we  are  nevertheless  assured  in  writing  under  the  hand  of  the 
late  lamented  Bishop  of  Ehode  Island,  that,  when  it  was  proposed 
that  the  Bishops  (of  whom  he  was  one)  assembled  in  New  York 
to  send  delegates  to  England,  'should  unite  in  a  request  to  the 
Senior  Bishop  to  postpone  the  trial,'  in  order  that  Bishops  might  go 
and  yet  attend  it — '  an  examination  of  the  Canon  satisfied  many  of 
them  that  in  so  doing  he  would  transcend  his  power,  and  that 
accordingly  the  delegates  elect  announced  their  purpose  not  to 
leave  the  country  under  such  circumstances.'  '  If,  however,'  (said 
Bishop  Henshaw,)  'Bishop  Doane  assented  to  the  postponement, 
under  the  peculiar  circumstances,  I  cannot  believe  he  would  object 
to  the  trial  proceeding  on  the  ground  of  this  technical  difiiculty.' 
The  Presenters  have  felt  themselves  bound  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  Court  to  these  particulars,  lest  they  should  be  held  under 
responsibility  for  the  new  Presentment  beyond  what  they  are  will- 
ing to  acknowledge. 


(    45    ) 

"  It  is  said  bj  the  Committee  of  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey 
respecting  the  new  charges  contained  in  this  Presentment,  that  '  they 
were  known  to  have  been  alleged  before  by  those  by  whom  they 
are  preferred.' 

"It  is  not  only  true  that  the  Presenters  had  heard  of  the  alleged 
offences  during  the  preparation  of  the  first  Presentment,  but  that 
they  had  actually  determined  on  introducing  two  of  them,  those 
touching  pecuniary  delinquency.  The  omission  of  these  was  acci- 
dental. The  others  were  also  under  consideration,  but  were  omitted 
for  want  of  time  to  make  sufficient  inquiry  and  be  assured  of 
proper  witnesses.  This  deficiency  being  supplied  before  the  second 
Presentment  was  adopted,  the  lost  charges  were  inserted ;  and  the 
Presentment  thus  completed  was  sent  with  all  possible  expedition 
to  the  Presiding  Bishop.  Unexpected  delays  in  preparing  the 
necessary  copies  to  be  sent  to  the  other  Bishops,  and  in  the  mail 
itself,  were  the  only  causes  known  to  us  through  which  it  failed  to 
reach  its  final  destination  until  the  evening  on  which  it  was  served 
upon  the  Respondent. 

"  The  step  which  you  are  now  called  to  adopt,  (if  you  listen  to  the 
prayer  of  the  Committee  of  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey,)  is  one 
which,  in  our  humble  view,  should  not  be  taken  till  after  the  most 
solemn  consideration  of  what  is  justly  expected  of  this  Court,  under 
the  vows  of  your  consecration  as  Bishops,  for  the  sustaining  the 
discipline,  the  vindication  of  the  purity,  and  consequently  the  pro- 
tection of  the  light  of  this  Church,  as  a  city  set  on  a  hill  in  the  midst 
of  a  gainsaying  world,  nor  then  without  the  most  imperative  and 
certain  convictions  of  positive  obligation.  The  question  is  whether, 
after  you  have  assembled  here  from  various  and  distant  parts,  on  a 
canonical  call  to  try  a  Presentment  made  undeniably  in  strict  accord- 
ance with  the  letter  of  the  law,  and  involving  charges  so  numerous 
and  so  heavy  against  one  of  your  own  order — on  whose  vindication, 
his  own  usefulness  and  the  Church's  honour  so  much  depends — you 
will,  on  the  plea  of  a  party  unknown  to  the  law  under  which  you 
sit,  decline  all  investigation  of  those  charges,  suffer  them  to  stand 
in  all  their  naked  awfulness,  untried  and  thus  unalleviated  ;  goino- 
out  to  all  the  world  against  a  Brother  Bishop  with  their  perpetual 
testimony,  going  down  to  all  generations,  a  blot  so  dark — not  only 
upon  the  reputation  of  a  single  Bishop,  but  upon  the  good  name  of 
our  whole  ministry  and  our  whole  Church.  Let  it  not  be  answered 
that  these  charges  have  been  tried  by  a  Committee  of  the  Convention 
of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey.     Investigated  to  a  certain  extent,  and 


i 


(    46    ) 

in  a  certain  way,  we  grant  tliey  have  been,  but  tried  they  have  not 
been.  Does  this  Church  acknowledge  any  thing  as  the  trial  of  a 
Bishop  except  it  be  before  one  single  tribunal,  and  that  the  very 
one  now  assembled  ?  Does  this  Church  acknowledge  any  thing  as  a 
trial  of  a  Bishop,  except  under  the  single  law  by  which  this  Court 
is  constituted,  and  according  to  its  mode  of  investigation  ?  Is  it 
competent  to  any  Diocese  to  set  up  its  own  tribunal  for  the  exam- 
ination of  charges  against  a  Bishop,  and  then  claim  that  its  exami- 
nations shall  have  the  weight  and  place  and  force  of  a  trial  by  the 
only  Court  known  to  the  Church  for  such  an  office,  as  if  the  one 
could  possibly  stand  as  a  satisfactory  substitute  for  the  other  ?  Can 
an  investigation  pretend  to  approximate  to  the  dignity  and  sufficiency, 
though  confessedly  without  the  form,  of  such  a  trial  as  your  Canon 
demands,  which  by  its  own  professions  was  entirely  ex  parte — at 
which  not  only  could  there  be  no  cross-examination  of  witnesses,  at 
which  not  only  did  almost  every  witness  relied  on  by  the  Present- 
ers refuse  to  attend,  because  they  knew  it  was  not  the  tribunal 
required  by  the  Church — but  at  which  by  positive  resolution  of  the 
Convention  of  New  Jersey,  the  motion  to  notify  the  presenting 
Bishops,  and  allow  them  to  attend  the  investigation  by  their  Attor- 
ney to  cross-examine  witnesses,  and  produce  rebutting  testimony, 
was  rejected?*  Are  the  ends  of  a  regularly  constituted  judicial 
tribunal,  under  the  law  of  our  whole  Churchy  and  alone  depended 
on  by  our  whole  Church,  to  be  thus  satisfactorily  attained  ?  Should 
a  Christian  Bishop  lying  under  the  weight  of  such  charges  as  these 
before  you,  and  yet  conscious  of  innocence,  desire  them  to  be  allowed 
to  remain  so  untried,  (a  desire  which  we  understand  the  present  Ee- 
spondent  pointedly  to  disclaim,)  we  should  exceedingly  wonder.  How 
any  Christian  Bishop,  conscious  of  innocence,  could  help  demand- 
ing, in  justice  to  himself,  that  every  impediment  to  his  trial  not  abso- 
lutely insurmountable  should  be  overleaped,  in  order  that  he  might 
have  the  privilege  of  being  confronted  face  to  face  with  the  testimony 
against  him,  we  do  not  understand.  That  the  Convention  of  a 
Bishop  so  presented  on  such  charges,  and  one  professing  the  greatest 
affection  for  their  Bishop,  the  greatest  zeal  for  his  reputation  and 
happiness  and  usefulness,  and  above  all  the  most  entire  confidence 
in  his  innocence,  in  the  impossibility  of  the  charges  being  sustained 
by  evidence,  should  be  so  earnest  to  set  aside  this  canonical  trial  so 
looked  to  and  waited  for  by  the  whole  Church,  and  to  set  it  aside 
mainly  on  the  ground  of  certain  views  entertained  by  them,  and 

*  See  Journal  of  the  59th  Annual  Convention  of  New  Jersey,  page  22. 


(    47    ) 

perhaps  no  where  else,  conceruing  their  position  and  rights :  yea, 
that  they  should  say  in  so  many  words,  '  we  cannot  consent  to  his 
trial,  because  ive  are  satisfied  of  his  in7iocence,'  is,  we  confess,  to  us  a 
matter  of  the  deepest  astonishment.  AVe  should  have  supposed  that 
it  would  have  been  a  far  more  friendly  expression  towards  their 
Bishop,  to  have  said,  '  lue  cannot  consent  to  his  trial  not  taking  place, 
because  ice  are  satisfied  of  his  innocence.^  But  we  would  respectfully 
submit  that  the  Diocese  is  not  the  only,  nor  the  most  important 
Ecclesiastical  Body,  that  has  a  deep  interest,  and  that  expects  its 
interests  to  be  considered  in  the  decision  now  before  you.  There  is 
a  body  of  Clergy  and  a  body  of  Laity  constituting  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  this  whole  land,  the  Church  under  whose 
authority  and  law  you  are  now  sitting,  that  is  now  compassing  you 
about  as  a  great  cloud  of  witnesses,  and  looking  most  earnestly  upon 
your  every  act  and  movement,  realizing  how  critically  the  dignity 
of  its  laws,  the  character  of  its  discipline,  the  purity  of  its  morals, 
the  reputation  of  its  ministry,  the  honour  of  the  Gospel,  are  now 
dependent  not  only  on  your  decision  of  the  present  question,  but,  if 
it  be  not  carried,  your  further  doings  at  every  step  of  the  progress 
of  this  case. 

"  As  for  ourselves,  the  Presenters,  we  have  no  personal  interests 
at  stake  which  your  determination,  in  deference  to  the  claim  and 
urgency  of  the  Committee  of  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  not  to 
try  this  present  issue,  would  not  most  amply  sustain.  If  the  case  is 
so  clear  and  the  charges  are  so  incapable  of  proof  as  that  Committee 
declares,  then  as  far  as  we  are  personally  concerned,  under  the 
heavy  responsibility  we  have  assumed,  it  is  far  better  for  us  that 
you  grant  their  request.  For  we  venture  to  assure  you  that,  in  that 
case,  we  should  feel  perfectly  confident  that  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Church  in  general,  and  of  all  people,  the  bare  design  of  the  Com- 
mittee so  urgently  pressed  on  such  grounds  would  be  our  vindica- 
tion and  praise. 

"But  we  appear  not  here  for  ourselves.  "We  represent,  as  you 
also  represent.  Right  Reverend  Brethren,  all  that  great  cloud  of  wit- 
nesses, the  whole  Church,  which  is  now  solemnly  waiting  upon  your 
deliberations.  That  is  the  great  party  in  this  case  which  remains 
to  be  heard.  If  under  the  present  motion  the  trial  of  the  Respondent 
be  dismissed,  our  trial  before  that  tribunal  is  ended.  "We  are  per- 
fectly confident  in  its  verdict  to  our  clearance. 

•'  But  allow  us.  Right  Reverend  Brethren,  most  respectfully  to 
remind  you  that  then  your  trial  at  that  great  tribunal  begins. 


(    48    ) 

The  Churcli  must  be  satisfied.  Whether  you  will  have  fulfilled  your 
consecration  vows  '  to  diligently  exercise  such  discipline  as  by  the 
authority  of  God's  Word  and  the  order  of  this  Church  is  committed 
to  you,'  will  then  be  tried.  That  you  will  well  and  conscientiously 
consider  the  position  in  which  you  are  therefore  now  placed  and 
the  critical  pass  to  which  you  have  now  arrived,  we  freely  trust. 
We  proceed  to  show  that  the  Committee  of  the  Convention  of  New 
Jersey  have  presented  no  reason  which  can  shield  this  Court  from 
the  strong  dissatisfaction  which  the  refusal  to  proceed  with  the  trial 
now  pending  must  occasion. 

"  The  Presenting  Bishops  cannot  adequately  express  the  surprise 
and  mortification  with  which  they  behold  the  peaceful  and  orderly 
conduct  of  a  judicial  tribunal  in  a  solemn  investigation  invaded 
and  interrupted  by  the  presentation  of  the  strange  and  unusual 
remonstrance  and  appeal  of  the  Committee  of  the  Convention  of 
New  Jersey.  For  the  first  time  in  the  annals  of  American  juris- 
prudence has  the  course  of  justice  been  subjected  to  the  direct 
influence  of  a  legislative  body.  Against  the  introduction  of  this 
influence  we  have  hitherto  opposed  our  sternest  remonstrances. 
These  have  proved  unavailing,  and  now  we  are  compelled  to  meet 
and  expose  the  perversions  of  fact  and  the  distortions  of  law,  behind 
and  beneath  which  that  Committee  have  assailed  the  freedom  and 
independence  of  your  judicial  character.  However  much  we  deplore 
the  ill  example  of  the  precedent,  we  are  far  from  regretting  the 
opportunity  it  affords  us  to  present  to  this  Court  a  full  narrative 
of  the  efforts  to  procure  and  to  evade  a  judicial  investigation  of  the 
crimes  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  Respondent.  The  legal  result  con- 
templated by  the  remonstrance  of  the  Convention,  is  a  discon- 
tinuance of  all  further  proceedings  on  this  Presentment.  They  ask 
that  the  Court  refuse  to  try  those  specifications  of  the  Presentment 
which  have  been  investigated  by  the  Convention,  because  the  pre- 
sentment now  pending  was  found  only  after  the  Convention  had 
acted  upon  them.  They  propose  a  like  dismission  of  the  charges 
not  investigated  by  the  Convention,  on  the  faith  of  its  pledge  to 
investigate  them  hereafter.  The  Presenting  Bishops  presume  that 
this  future  investigation  will  be  a  repetition  of  the  past :  and  that 
past  investigation  has  not  so  conciliated  their  confidence  or  respect, 
as  to  induce  them  willingly  to  commit  the  purity  of  the  Episcopate 
to  such  an  ordeal  under  such  auspices.  They  invoke  the  solemn 
attention  of  the  Court  while  they  retrace  the  course  of  events  touch- 
ing the  attempts  to  procure  a  trial  of  the  charges  against  the  accused, 


(    49     ) 

■which  the  Committee  have  undertaken  to  narrate,  but  which  they 
have  very  imperfectly  and  inaccurately  represented. 

"At  the  Convention  of  1849  a  resolution  was  offered  reciting  the 
requisition  of  the  Scriptures,  that  a  Bishop  should  be  of  good  report 
of  them  that  are  without,  and  reciting  also,  that  public  rumour, 
as  well  as  newspaper  publications,  had  made  serious  charges  against 
the  Bishop,  and  creating  a  Committee  to  make  such  investigations 
as  should  establish  the  innocence  or  justify  the  presentment  of  the 
accused;  and  that  resolution  was,  after  full  debate  and  discussion, 
lost  by  a  unanimous  negative, 

"  The  fact  of  the  newspaper  publications,  and  of  the  prevalence 
of  the  public  rumours  alleged,  was  notorious.  They  were  not  denied 
or  disputed ;  but  admitting  their  existence,  the  Convention  refused 
to  institute  an  inquiry  as  to  their  truth  or  falsehood. 

"  The  Committee  have  informed  us  as  to  the  reasons  of  this  refusal 
— and  they  throw  some  light  on  the  chances  of  holding  the  Bishop 
of  New  Jersey  to  a  due  responsibility  through  his  Convention. 

"  We  are  told  '  they  refused  to  treat  the  fame  of  the  Bishop  and 
peace  of  the  Diocese  as  matters  of  such  light  moment,  as  to  place 
them  at  the  mercy  of  every  idle  report  of  ignorance  or  enmity.' 

"  But  the  Convention  did  not  even  take  the  trouble  to  inquire 
whether  these  public  rumours  were  idle  reports  of  ignorance  or  en- 
mity, or  the  reverberating  echoes  of  the  voice  of  truth. 

"  Whether  true  or  false,  malignant,  or  urged  in  good  faith,  they 
made  the  Bishop  of  evil  report  among  them  that  were  without. 
The  Bible  required  him  to  be  not  merely  blameless  in  fad,  but  to 
be  of  good  report.  The  evil  report  was,  therefore,  the  very  thing  to 
be  avoided,  cleared  up,  and  dispelled ;  yet  that  task  the  Convention 
refused  to  attempt,  contenting  itself  with  its  own  preconceived 
confidence  in  his  purity. 

"  The  Convention  were  as  unmindful  of  the  Canons  of  the  Church 
as  of  the  precepts  of  the  New  Testament,  when  they  refused  to 
regard  prevailing  reports  and  imputations  on  the  character  of  the 
Bishop  as  adequate  reasons,  not  for  trying  the  Bishop,  but  for  in- 
quiring into  their  origin,  so  as  to  dispel  or  confirm  them.  The 
XXXYIIth  Canon  of  1838,  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  Bishop,  if  a 
minister  '  be  accused  hj  public  rumour  of  crimes  and  offences, '  to  see 
that  inquiry  be  instituted  as  to  the  truth  of  such  public  rumour. 
The  analogy  should  com2')el  a  Convention,  whose  Bishop  is  accused  by 
public  rumour,  to  inquire  as  to  the  truth  of  such  public  rumour. 
The  character  of  a  Bishop  is  quite  as  delicate,  much  more  important, 

4 


(    50    ) 

not  less  likely  to  be  assailed,  and  more  powerful  in  example  for  evil 
or  good.  It  should,  therefore  be  guarded  with  even  greater  care 
than  that  of  the  presbyter ;  but  to  refuse  inquiry  is  not  to  protect, 
but  to  expose  it  to  the  tongue  of  calumny. 

"Nor  is  it  true  that  the  Convention  of  1849  gave  any  assurance 
that  a  suitable  investigation  would  follow  upon  the  presentation  of 
charges  by  responsible  names ;  for  the  declarations  in  debate,  of  a 
few  of  its  prominent  members,  bound  nobody  but  themselves. 

"  The  Convention  therefore  left  on  the  character  of  the  Bishop, 
clouds  which,  while  most  seriously  darkening  his  good  name,  have 
cast  their  shadow  over  the  whole  Church. 

"  The  statement  of  the  Committee,  that  '  two  succeeding  Annual 
Conventions  were  held  without  a  renewal  of  the  subject,'  if  true 
in  the  letter,  is  not  accurate  in  spirit  and  substance. 

"  At  the  following  Convention  of  1850,  an  effort  on  the  part  of 
some  members  of  the  Convention,  to  obtain  satisfaction  as  to  the 
security  of  the  Episcopal  Fund,  then  in  the  hands  of  the  Bishop, 
under  the  circumstances  detailed  in  the  10th  Specification,  was  frus- 
trated by  the  abrupt  adjournment  of  the  Convention.  The  purpose 
of  the  adjournment  may  be  conjectured,  with  no  little  certainty, 
from  a  similar  transaction  of  the  following  year. 

"  Before  the  meeting  of  the  Convention  of  1851,  Michael  Hayes, 
one  of  the  chief  creditors  of  the  Bishop,  and  one  who  had  been 
specially  injured,  had  publicly  declared  his  intention  to  complain 
in  a  definite  shape  to  that  Convention.  It  was  widely  known  that 
he  had  prepared  a  formal  aflidavit  for  the  purpose,  and  the  Bishop 
had  been  apprised  by  him  of  his  intention.  The  friends  of  the 
Bishop,  in  the  Convention,  knew  that  Mr.  Halsted  stood  prepared 
to  bring  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  that  body.  The  Conven- 
tion, under  these  circumstances,  met  in  May,  1851,  and  on  the  first 
day  of  its  session,  contrary  to  its  usage,  and  after  Mr.  Halsted  was 
known  to  have  retired  for  the  day,  hurried  over  its  indispensable 
business ;  pushed  its  work  so  far  into  the  evening  as  to  crowd  out 
the  religious  services  appointed  for  that  season ;  omitted  the  exami- 
nation of  the  Treasurer's  accounts,  which  could  not  be  passed  on  the 
first  day  of  the  Convention,  and  abruptly  adjourned  sine  die,  late  in 
the  evening.  So  anxious  were  they  to  avoid  meeting  the  charges 
of  Michael  Hayes,  now  among  the  most  serious  that  are  urged  against 
the  Bishop.  Such  were  the  circumstances  under  which  the  '  two 
succeeding  Conventions  were  held  without  a  renewal  of  the  sub- 
ject.' 


(    51    ) 

"  Xor  was  Michael  Ilayes  tlie  only  accuser  of  the  Bishop,  of  a 
responsible  character,  prior  to  that  Convention. 

"  In  September,  ISoO,  the  Rector  of  St.  Michael's  Church,  Trenton^ 
read  to  the  Yestry  and  Wardens  of  his  churcli  a  statement  embody- 
ing the  facts  which  now  form  the  11th,  ISth  and  19th  Specifications 
of  the  presentment,  and  the  Wardens  and  Vestry  caused  it  to  be 
printed  and  published,  and  circulated  through  the  Diocese  under 
their  avowed  sanction.  The  Bishop  and  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion cannot  plead  ignorance  who  were  the  Rector,  and  Wardens,  and 
Vestrymen,  of  one  of  the  most  important  parishes  in  the  Diocese. 
It  is  not  supposed  that  all  of  them — it  is  not  known  that  any  of 
them,  were  of  such  little  repute  and  character  that  charges  distinctly 
urged,  in  print,  by  them  against  their  Bishop,  were  unworthy  of 
notice  or  investigation.  They  were  neither  idle  rumours,  nor  news- 
jpaper  publications.  Responsible  names  were  answerable  for  the 
truth  of  the  charges  ;  yet  the  Convention  dissolved  under  apprehen- 
sion of  an  investigation  which  they  were  anxious  to  avoid,  yet  feared, 
if  asked,  to  refuse. 

"  In  despair  of  redress  from  such  a  Convention,  four  laymen  of 
respectable  standing,  all  communicants  of  the  Church,  all  members 
of  the  Convention,  and  all  officers  of  parishes,  sought  redress  in 
the  other  method  pointed  out  by  the  Canon.  They  laid  nineteen 
charges,  drawn  up  in  due  form,  and  accompanied  by  the  affidavit 
of  Michael  Hayes  as  to  some  of  the  most  material,  before  the  three 
Presenting  Bishops,  and  desired  their  official  intervention  as  Present- 
ers to  procure  a  trial  of  the  accused.  Other  Bishops  were  solicited  to 
assume  the  ungracious  task  of  Presenters ;  but,  while  admitting  the 
duty  of  some  of  the  order  to  make  the  inquest,  they  all  for  various 
reasons,  personal  to  themselves,  declined  to  proceed  in  the  matter. 

"  Still  reluctant  to  force  on  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  the  vexation 
and  scandal  of  a  public  trial,  the  three  Bishops  addressed  him  their 
letter  of  the  twenty-second  September,  1851.  The  response  was 
'  The  Protest,  Appeal,  and  Reply  of  George  Washington  Doane, 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey.' 

"  The  meaning  and  the  object  of  that  letter  have  been  greatly  per- 
verted. It  was  intended  as  a  kindness ;  it  sought  to  save  the 
Bishop  the  humiliation  of  a  public  trial,  if  the  purity  of  the  Church 
could  be  assured  by  a  less  public  process. 

"The  Bishop  denounced  it  as  'an  uncanonical,  unchristian,  and 
inhuman  procedure' — repelled  its  suggestions  with  scorn,  heaped 
contumely  on  its  authors,  and  summoned  them  before  the  judgment 


(    52    ) 

seat  of  God,  to  answer  for  the  injustice,  indignity  and  cruelty  of 
their  conduct.  He  summoned  the  Special  Convention  of  March, 
1852. 

"It  is  true  that  this  Convention  was  confined  to  the  subject  men- 
tioned within  the  call,  but  the  Committee  are  seriously  misleading 
this  Court  when  they  insinuate  that  any  investigation  of  the  charges 
against  the  Bishop  was  beyond  the  terms  of  the  call.  The  language 
of  the  call  is  decisive. 

"  The  Convention  were  summoned  '  to  consider  and  express  their 
judgment  on  the  official  conduct  of  the  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine, 
and  Ohio,  as  touching  the  rights  of  the  Bishop  and  the  Diocese,  in 
dictating  a  course  to  he  pursued  hy  them'  in  their  letter  addressed  to 
him,  dated  22d  September,  1851,  &c.  The  letter  and  the  articles 
of  charge  which  the  three  Bishops  requested  should  be  investigated 
before  a  Special  Convention,  are  set  forth  in  the  Protest  and  Appeal. 
To  it  is  reference  made  for  the  documents  which  were  to  form  the 
subject  of  consideration.  The  letter  contained  the  charges,  and 
without  them  was  unmeaning. 

"  The  Convention  therefore  was,  by  the  words  of  the  call,  commis- 
sioned to  consider  and  express  their  judgment  on  the  rights  of  the 
Bishop  and  the  Diocese  ;  now  these  rights,  as  to  the  Diocese,  are  as- 
serted to  include  the  exclusive  right  of  priority  in  deciding  through 
the  Convention,  on  the  presentment  of  their  Bishop.  That  is  the 
very  j)oint  of  the  present  application.  They  were  therefore  called  to 
consider  of  the  course  to  be  pursued  by  them,  in  consequence  of  the 
dictation  and  the  threat  of  the  three  Bishops  ;  neither  they  nor  the 
Bishop  seemed  to  have  entertained  any  doubt  as  to  the  extent  of 
their  jurisdiction  at  that  Convention. 

"The  limitation  of  it  has  the  appearance  of  an  afterthought. 

"  The  Bishop  in  his  address  declared  that  the  action  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  1819,  is  insisted  on  as  final.  '  The  action  has  taken  place  in 
your  Diocesan  Convention.  The  Bishops  cannot  take  it  up.'  But, 
while  excluding  the  Bishops,  he  admits  the  power  of  the  Convention. 

"  He  says  he  did  not  invite  investigation,  but  '  his  answer  was,  to 
whomsoever  will,  if  you  desire  investigation,  come  and  make  it. 
Made  in  a  canonical  way,  &c.,  &c.,  he  meets  it  in  a  moment.' 

"  The  Convention  seem  quite  clear  as  to  their  power.  Three  reso- 
lutions were  proposed  and  adopted,  embodying  the  decision  of  the 
Convention  on  the  very  point. 

"  The  first  sustains  the  Bishop's  refusal  to  call  a  Convention  for 
the  special  purpose  of  investigation  at  the  dictation  of  the  Bishops. 


(    53    ) 

"  The  second  resolution  goes  entirely  beyond  what  the  Committee 
would  represent  as  the  limits  of  the  power  of  the  Convention,  It 
declares  that  in  view  of  the  vote  of  the  Convention  of  1849,  and  '  of 
all  that  has  since  occurred  in  reference  to  the  alleged  charges  against  our 
Bishop,  they  have  entire  confidence  in  his  purity  and  upright- 
ness.' 

"  What  is  this  but  a  passing  on  the  very  matter  to  be  investigated  ? 
It  is  declaring  the  result  of  an  actual  investigation,  for  it  is  done  in 
view  of  the  vote  of  18-i9,  and  all  that  has  since  transpired  relative 
to  the  charges. 

"  The  third  resolution  goes  still  farther,  and  declares  that  no  inves- 
tigation is  required.  It  was  equally  competent  for  the  Convention  to 
have  come  to  an  opposite  conclusion.  If  it  could  vote  that  the  Bishop 
was  pure,  it  could  say  that  he  was  impure.  If  it  could  say  that  no 
investigation  was  needed,  it  could  say,  '  we  think  that  such  and 
such  charges  do  need  investigation.'  Nor  can  they  escape  under 
the  plea  of  the  want  of  a  responsible  name ;  for  the  four  laymen 
stood  responsible  for  the  nineteen  charges,  and  the  Bishops  stood 
behind  them,  and  the  afl&davit  of  Michael  Hayes  gave  the  sanction 
of  an  oath. 

"  The  Convention  then  refused  again  to  hold  the  Bishop  responsible 
before  the  Church.  » 

"The  Committee  are  singularly  unfortunate  in  their  complaint 
that  the  Presenting  Bishops,  between  the  Special  and  the  Annual 
Convention  of  1852,  disregarded  the  pledge  of  the  Special  Conven- 
tion that  an  investigation  should  be  had,  and  that,  before  the  time 
for  the  assembling  of  the  Annual  Convention,  action  was  taken  by 
them  to  procure  a  trial.  The  Committee  inaccurately  represent  the 
proceedings  of  the  Special  Convention.  It  gave  no  pledge  that  it 
or  any  other  Convention  would  investigate  the  charges  preferred 
against  the  Bishop  by  the  four  laymen.  On  the  contrary,  the  reso- 
lutions adopted  by  that  Convention — the  only  authentic  evidence 
of  its  views — expressly  declare  its  solemn  opinion  that  the  best 
interest  of  the  Diocese  and  of  the  Church  at  large,  requires  no 
such  proceeding.  This  was  a  pledge  not  to  investigate  any  of  these 
charges.  The  resolutions  do  declare  that  the  Convention  of  the 
Diocese  had  ever  been  ready  to  make  such  investigation  on  charges 
duly  made ;  but  its  readiness  is  best  estimated  by  its  acts ;  and  they 
have  been  a  continued  series  of  refusals  or  evasions.  The  three 
Bishops  had  thus  urged  a  call  of  a  Convention  to  investigate  specific 
charges.     That  Convention  formally  replied  that  the  interests  of  the 


(    54    ) 

Churcii  reqnii-o(l  no  siicli  proceeding.  This  was  a  declaration  that 
it  would  not  investigate. 

"  The  three  Presenting  Bishops  waited  the  result  of  the  Special 
Convention.  They  were  mortified  at  the  exhibition  of  devotion  to 
an  individual,  at  the  cost  of  the  reputation  of  the  Church  of  God. 
They  had  but  one  path,  and  they  resolved  to  tread  it — thorny 
though  it  might  prove. 

*'  They  entered  on  a  formal  and  careful  investigation  of  the  charges 
preferred  against  the  accused.  The  evidence  before  them  satisfied 
them  of  his  guilt  on  all  the  specifications  in  the  Presentment  first 
made  ;  and  they  said  so — as  the  law  required  them  to  do — in  the 
shape  of  that  Presentment,  It  was  forwarded  to  the  Senior  Bishop, 
and  he  designated  the  24th  day  of  June  as  the  day  of  trial,  and 
summoned  the  Court  to  meet. 

"  It  was  noiu  irrevocahli/  fixed  that  an  investigation  would  be 
made,  and  a  trial  had  before  an  impartial  tribunal — unless  some 
mode  could  be  contrived  to  evade  it. 

"  The  Diocesan  Convention  ivas  now  called  on  to  investigate  the 
very  matters  which,  a  few  months  before,  had  been  treated  as  not 
requiring  investigation.  The  Convention  of  1852  met.  A  Com- 
mittee was  elected  to  make  a  full  investigation  of  all  the  charges  in 
the  Presentment. 

"  It  was  moved  to  include  all  other  charges.  This  was  voted 
down.  The  Committee  proceeded  to  its  work,  and  the  Eeport  is  the 
monument  of  its  industry. 

"  We  enter  now  on  no  criticism  of  its  contents.  It  stands  self- 
condemned  by  its  parentage,  its  purpose,  and  its  result.  The  Con- 
vention reiterate  the  old  pretexts  in  their  resolutions.  The  recital 
afiirmed  that  the  Convention  had  always  been  ready  to  investigate 
charges  duly  made  and  presented,  yet  no  Convention  had  ever  been 
found  which  avowed  its  willingness  to  enter  on  such  an  investi- 
gation. 

"It  declared  that  the  paper  signed  by  the  three  Bishops  furnished 
the  first  and  only  occasion  for  that  Convention  to  investigate  charges 
against  their  Bishop :  yet  it  requires  a  refined  logic  to  discriminate 
between  the  j^^a^^e?'  signed  by  three  Bishops  and  the  j-joper  signed  by 
four  Laymen. 

"  They  expressly  claim  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  of  first  passing 
on  the  propriety  of  a  Presentment  of  their  Bishop.  They  therefore 
have  no  right  to  attribute  any  peculiarity  to  the  paper  signed  by  the 
Bishops,  distinguishing  it  from  that  signed  by  any  other  responsible 


(    55    ) 

persons.  They  do  not  admit  it  to  be  a  valid  Presentment ;  for  if  so, 
then  the  case  is  instituted,  and  nothing  but  a  Court  can  try  it. 
They  act  on  this  theory,  and  call  it,  not  a  Presentment,  but  a  paper 
signed  by  three  Bishops. 

"  It  is  therefore  the  paper  signed  on  which  they  proceed,  and  they 
had  a  paper  signed  by  the  four  laymen — and  indeed  authenticated 
by  the  Bishops  also — before  the  Special  Convention.  It  was  not, 
therefore,  the  first  occasion,  on  their  own  principles,  on  which  they 
were  called  on  to  exercise  their  exclusive  right  of  first  investigation. 

"  They  cannot  maintain  that  the  Convention  is  only  to  act  on  the 
presentment  by  the  Bishops,  for  that  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  pre- 
sentment mentioned  in  the  Canon.  That  presentment  is  to  be,  not 
the  basis  of  a  conventional  inquisition,  but  the  thing  to  be  tried. 

"  The  whole  scheme,  therefore,  stands  exposed. 

"  The  Convention  now  investigates,  because  either  investigation 
or  trial  is  inevitable.  The  Convention  embrace  the  former  alterna- 
tive, and  try  the  last  effort  at  escape  from  the  dangers  of  a  trial. 

"  We  are  pointed  proudly  to  the  list  of  that  Committee  conduct- 
ing the  investigation. 

"We  do  not  wish  to  diminish  aught  of  that  pride;  but  we  shall 
not  scruple  to  scrutinize  the  composition  of  that  Committee,  and  its 
fitness  for  the  duties  with  which  it  was  charged.  We  trust  it  will  not 
be  considered  as  impertinent  if  we  remark  that,  of  the  seven  mem- 
bers of  that  Committee,  the  Chairman,  Mr.  Eyall,  was  a  zealous  sup- 
porter of  the  accused  in  the  Convention.  He  was  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  appointed  by  Bishop  Doane  to  examine  Mr.  Germain's 
accounts,  and  was  cognizant  of,  and  did  not  disclose,  Mr.  Germain's 
illegal  transfer  of  the  Episcopal  Fund  to  Bishop  Doane  without  secu- 
rit}' — which  was  one  of  the  charges  to  be  investigated — and  he  was 
Chairman  of  a  Committee  which  reported,  contrary  to  the  truth,  that 
the  Fund  was  secured.  He  was  a  Trustee  of  the  College,  where  his 
children  had  been  educated.  Mr.  Harker  was  a  creditor  of  the 
Bishop,  and  so  interested  in  sustaining  the  Bishop.  Mr.  Potter  was 
a  judgment  creditor  and  a  Trustee  of  the  College,  and  so  having 
a  like  interest.  Mr.  Whitney  was  a  Trustee  of  the  College,  and  so 
having  a  like  interest. 

"  The  names  of  the  Committee  had  been  put  on  paper,  and  circu- 
lated exactly  as  they  Avere  elected,  before  the  assembling  of  the 
Convention. 

"  Their  investigation  was  wholly  ex  parte — no  notice  having  been 
given  to  the  Bishops,  who,  it  was  pretended,  had  given  the  only 


(    56    ) 

foundation  for  tlie  investigation,  and  the  Convention  having  actually 
voted  down  a  resolution  proposing  that  such  notice  should  be  given. 

"  As  an  attempt  to  discover  the  truth,  it  was  necessarily  a  failure. 

"  The  material  witnesses  in  support  of  the  charges  were  not  before 
them.  Of  thirty-eight  named  by  Mr.  Halsted,  and  all  material  and 
important,  only  five  were  examined,  as  appears  from  the  Eeport 
itself 

"  The  remonstrance  of  the  Committee  describes  the  whole  pro- 
ceeding with  singular  accuracy,  when,  in  deprecating  a  trial,  it  says. 
'  the  charges  can  only  at  the  most  be  backed  by  those  who  make 
them  under  oath ;  and  the  testimony  on  the  part  of  the  accused  is 
already  taken  under  oath,  disproving  by  witnesses  as  unimpeach- 
able, and  by  dates  and  facts,  and  circumstantial  evidence  (which 
never  lies)  the  charges  which  are  made.' 

"  The  only  difference  is,  the  Committee  heard  one  side — the  Court 
is  asked  to  listen  to  both  sides,  and  weigh  the  evidence. 

"  Not  only  were  the  material  witnesses  for  the  prosecution  absent, 
but  there  was  no  cross-examination  of  those  called  on  the  Bishop's 
side.  No  one  was  there  to  cross-examine  them.  They  could  cover 
up  the  facts  in  what  cloud  of  generalities  they  might  see  fit.  Yet 
even  noiu  the  evidence  strengthens  greatly  the  case  to  be  made  by 
the  prosecution. 

"  No  one  of  the  tests  for  eliciting  truth  was  applied  in  the  pro- 
ceeding. 

"  As  an  assurance  of  the  truth  of  its  findings,  the  Eeport  is  utterly 
worthless. 

"  The  resolutions  of  the  Convention,  passed  on  the  reception  of 
the  Report,  are  as  worthless  as  the  evidence  and  findings  of  the 
Eeport.  They  can,  at  best,  only  indicate  the  concurrence  of  the 
Convention  in  the  opinion  of  the  Committee :  and  the  value  of  that 
opinion  we  have  already  exposed. 

"The  third  resolution,  however,  indicates  the  purpose  to  be 
served  in  the  Report. 

"To  that  resolution,  we  owe  this  strange  invasion  of  the  in- 
dependence and  sanctity  of  the  judicial  functions  of  this  Court; 
the  gross  insult  put  on  your  Episcopal  prerogatives;  and  the 
humiliation  of  your  dignity  to  the  position  of  dependants  on  the 
will  or  the  caprice  of  a  Diocesan  Convention,  for  the  liberty  to  exer- 
cise the  prerogative,  conferred  by  the  Canon,  of  trying  one  of  your 
peers  for  crimes  of  deep  malignity,  however  supported  by  irresistible 
evidence. 


(    o7    ) 

"  The  third  resolution  directs  the  Committee  to  present  a  written 
representation  of  '  the  legal  and  canonical  position  and  rights  of  the 
Convention,  and  to  urge  the  inquiry  whether  it  will  be  wise  or  just, 
or  for  the  peace  of  God's  Church,  to  proceed  further  upon  the  charges 
laid  before  the  Court.' 

"This  resolution  presents  first  a  claim  of  legal  right,  and  secondly 
an  appeal  to  your  discretion. 

"  The  latter  rests  for  its  influence  on  the  weight  to  be  attributed  to 
the  body  passing  the  resolutions  and  making  the  representation. 

"  The  Committee,  conscious  of  this,  venture  on  a  contrast  between 
the  number  of  the  Convention  and  that  of  three  Bishops,  and  proudly 
rest  on  the  elevated  character  they  ascribe  to  the  Committee  and  the 
Convention,  as  the  guarantee  of  the  fulness  and  fairness  of  the 
investigation. 

"  When  we  turn  to  the  record  of  the  Convention,  we  are  surprised 
to  learn  that  in  a  Diocese  comprising  sixty-four  ministers,  only  about 
thirty-seven  are  entitled  to  a  voice  in  the  Convention ; 

"  That  of  these  thirty -seven,  only  twenty-two  voted  on  any  reso- 
lution ; 

"  That  the  resolution,  now  under  consideration,  was  carried  by 
a  vote  of  seventeen,  less  than  a  majority  of  all  the  Clergy  entitled  to 
a  vote  in  Convention; 

"  That  six  of  those  who  voted  were  missionaries,  appointed  by  the 
Bishop  whose  guilt  or  innocence  was  in  question,  removeable  at  his 
pleasure,  depending  on  him  for  their  vote  and  their  daily  bread, 
and  so  subject  to  his  will ;  that  one  was  upon  another  occasion  put 
on  the  list  of  missionaries  after  he  had  been  excluded  from  his  seat 
which  he  had  claimed  on  other  ground  ; 

"  That  four  other  voters  were  employees  in  the  Bishop's  college 
or  school ; 

"  That  Mr.  Stubbs,  another  voter,  was  deeply  implicated  in  one 
of  the  greatest  charges  against  the  Bishop. 

"Consequently,  half  the  Clergy  in  the  Convention  cannot  be  con- 
sidered as  impartial  triers  of  the  matter  to  be  investigated. 

"  The  vast  majority  of  the  impartial  Clergy  are  silent  spectators  of 
the  scene  in  which  they  shrank  from  being  actors.  Their  opinion  is 
not  before  us. 

"  Of  the  Lay  vote  we  have  not  the  means  of  so  close  an  analysis. 

"  But  we  are  struck  by  the  significant  fact,  that  while  there  are 
fifty-nine  parishes  entitled  to  representation,  only  twenty-eight 
parishes  were  present  by  their  delegates;  and  they,  we  presume, 


(    58    ) 

were  chiefly  parishes  of  the  Clergy  who  appeared ;   and  that,  of 
these  twenty-eight,  only  nineteen  voted  in  favour  of  the  resolution. 

"How  this  analysis  of  the  vote  upon  the  resolution  can  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  averment  of  the  Committee,  that  '  a  large  majority 
of  the  representatives  of  the  Clergy  and  Laity  of  New  Jersey  have 
declared  that  such  great  and  momentous  rights  of  the  Diocese  are 
involved  in  this  presentment,  as  to  demand  that  they  be  stated  to 
your  body,'  we  submit  to  the  consideration  of  this  Court. 

"  It  remains,  that  the  vast  majority  of  the  Laity  of  New  Jersey  are 
silent  in  this  great  appeal.  They  urge  no  interruption  to  the  ordinary 
course  of  justice. 

"They  who  make  this  unheard  of  claim  are  a  small  minority  of 
both  Orders ;  speaking  their  devotion  to  the  Bishop,  rather  than 
the  opinion  of  an  impartial  and  independent  inquest. 

"  The  claim  is  therefore  destitute  of  every  element  of  strength. 
To  the  character  of  a  full  and  fair  investigation  of  the  matter 
charged  against  the  Bishop,  the  proceeding  of  the  Convention  has 
no  pretence  of  title. 

"  To  call  it  a  trial  is  a  gross  perversion  of  language.  It  has  no 
one  quality  of  a  trial.  Parties  were  not  cited  ;  witnesses  were  not 
confronted ;  pleas  were  not  entered ;  charges  were  not  preferred ; 
no  judges  were  present.  A  Committee  sat  in  the  presence  of  the 
Bishop  and  his  counsel,  sent  for  whom  they  pleased,  made  up  their 
Eeport,  and  returned  it  to  the  Convention.  It  concludes  nothing. 
If  adverse,  it  would  only  have  been  the  ground  on  which  the  Con- 
vention might  have  made  a  presentment.  But  of  itself  it  would 
not  have  been  even  a  presentment.  Still  less  could  it  be  consid- 
ered a  judgment  concluding  the  merits,  whether  for  or  against  the 
accused. 

"It  is  therefore  no  fair  or  full  expression  of  the  opinion  of  the 
Clergy  and  Laity  of  New  Jersey. 

"It  is  no  full  and  fair  investigation  of  the  matters  laid  to  the 
Bishop's  charge. 

"  It  is  no  trial  in  form  or  in  substance  of  any  one  of  the  charges. 

"  It  is  entitled  to  no  weight  whatever  before  this  Court,  were  it 
regularly  before  it. 

"  It  is  a  gross  invasion  of  the  prerogatives  of  the  Court  of  Bishops ; 
a  glaring  attempt  to  persuade  or  overawe  them  in  the  performance 
of  their  duty.     They  should  repel  it  promptly  and  decisively. 
"  II.  But  the  Committee  are  instructed  to  urge  its  legal  effect. 
"  We  might  well  spare  ourselves  the  trouble  of  replying  on  this 


(    59    ) 

point  till  the  Committee  have  made  up  their  own  minds  in  what 
light  they  will  themselves  regard  the  resolutions  of  the  Conven- 
tion. 

"  Their  argument  is  one  long  series  of  misapplied  names  and  mis- 
conceived principles.  A  brief  exposition  of  the  true  nature  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  Convention  and  of  the  three  Bishops,  as  defined 
bj  the  Canon,  the  ultimate  and  only  law  of  this  Court,  will  exempt 
us  from  pursuing  the  Committee  through  the  labyrinth  of  their 
perplexities. 

"  The  policy  of  the  jurisprudence  of  modern  times,  in  England  and 
America,  has  interposed  between  the  citizen  and  a  prosecution  for 
a  public  offence,  a  public  body,  or  public  bodies,  charged  with 
inquiring  into  the  propriety  of  putting  a  party  on  his  trial. 

"  Such  are  our  grand  juries ;  such  are  the  House  of  Commons  and 
the  House  of  Representatives  touching  impeachments ;  such  are 
courts  of  criminal  jurisdiction,  together  with  the  attorney -general, 
relative  to  informations  for  misdemeanors,  filed  by  the  latter  with 
the  leave  of  the  former. 

"  The  functions  of  these  bodies  are  solely  those  of  inquest  They 
make  inquiry  ex  2^arte,  and  institute  or  refuse  to  institute  prosecu-: 
tious  as  they  see  fit,  under  all  the  circumstances.  They  can  only 
order  a  prosecution,  or  find  a  bill,  on  evidence  ;  but  that  evidence  is 
confined  to  one  side,  that  oi  \hQ  prosecution,  and  none  other  is  allowed 
to  be  brought  before  them.  The  reason  is,  they  try  nothing;  they 
merely  inquire  whether  such  a  case  is  made  out  as  makes  it  fit  that 
the  party  accused  should  be  put  on  his  trial.  But  though  they 
must  have  evidence  before  they  can  put  a  party  on  his  tried,  they 
can  and  do  open  the  investigation  into  an  alleged  or  supposed  crime, 
on  the  information  or  rumour  of  any  fact  putting  them  on  inquiry, 
and  promising  to  reward  research  by  discovery. 

"  The  finding  of  a  true  bill  by  one  of  these  inquests,  a  grand  jury 
for  instance,  does  not  condemn  the  accused.  It  is  merely  a  declara- 
tion that  the  jury  believe  him  guilty,  and  the  necessary  prerequisite 
of  a  trial. 

"  The  failure  or  refusal  to  find  a  bill  is  no  more  an  acquittal,  than 
the  finding  is  a  conviction  of  the  accused.  Neither  bars  subse- 
quent proceedings.  Neither  is  conclusive  on  any  one,  or  on  any 
thing.  The  same  jury  may  refuse  to-day,  and  find  a  true  bill  to- 
morrow, for  the  same  offence ;  or,  one  grand  jury  may  refuse,  and 
a  following  one  may  find,  a  bill;  or,  the  Court  may  allow  an 
information  to  be  filed,  either  before  a  grand  jury  shall  have  refused 


(     60    ) 

to  find  a  bill,  or  after  it  has  refused ;  or,  even  when  it  has  found 
one,  if  the  prosecuting  officer  prefer  that  mode  of  proceeding. 

"  If  no  body  authorized  will  find  a  bill  or  allow  an  information, 
the  party  cannot  be  tried ;  but  he  is  not  acquitted ;  and  any  sub- 
sequent grand  jury,  or  the  court  at  a  future  day,  may  proceed  by 
bill  or  information  at  its  pleasure.  Such  a  thing  as  pleading  the 
refusal  of  one  such  body,  with  a  view  to  quash  the  finding  of 
another,  is  an  absurdity  of  which  no  law  book  furnishes  an  ex- 
ample. 

"  The  trial  of  the  accused,  when  the  accusation  is  once  instituted 
by  any  body  known  to  the  law  as  authorized  to  institute  it,  is  a 
totally  different  affair. 

"  The  thing  to  be  tried  is,  the  bill  found  by  the  grand  jury,  the 
impeachment  by  the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  or  the  information 
by  the  attorney-general. 

"  The  trial  is  not  before  an  inquest  proceeding  ex  parte,  but  before 
a  court,  on  formal  pleadings,  in  the  presence  of  the  parties,  where 
witnesses  are  confronted,  sworn,  cross-examined,  and  its  result  is, 
not  putting  a  party  on  trial,  but  putting  an  end  to  the  trial ;  making 
an  end  of  the  whole  accusation;  either  finally  discharging  the 
prisoner  by  acquittal,  or  finally  condemning  him  by  a  conviction. 
The  one  is  the  beginning,  the  other  is  the  end,  of  controversy. 

"  Now,  the  claim  of  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  is,  that  its 
investigation,  and  its  resolution  declaring  the  result  of  that  inves- 
tigation to  be  the  exculpation  of  the  Bishop  from  any  charge  of 
crime  or  immorality  made  against  him,  shall  exclude  the  right  of 
this  Court  to  try  him,  on  a  presentment  made  by  three  Bishops,  for 
the  crimes  and  immoralities  so  investigated. 

"  This  is  the  only  intelligible  shape  in  which  we  can  state  the 
vague  and  shifting  forms  of  appeal,  entreaty,  remonstrance  and 
argument,  in  which  the  Committee  have  clothed  their  meaning. 

"  The  facts  are — 1.  The  declaration  of  the  Special  Convention  that 
there  was  no  cause  for  investigation.  2.  The  Presentment  ordered 
for  trial  on  the  24th  of  June.  3.  The  Convention  which  passed 
the  resolutions,  and  had  the  investigation  in  question.  4.  The 
adjournment  of  the  trial.  5.  The  consequent  making  of  a  new 
Presentment,  now  about  to  be  tried  before  this  Court,  summoned  for 
that  purpose  according  to  the  Canon. 

"  The  progress  of  this  trial  the  Convention  claims  a  right  to  arrest, 
by  virtue  of  the  course  of  events  above  narrated. 

"  This  Court  is  created  by  the  highest  authority  known  to  the 


(    61    ) 

American  Church.  It  is  not  in  any  particular  subordinate  or 
amenable  to  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey. 

"  On  the  contrary,  it  draws  its  authority  from  a  source  paramount 
to  the  laws  and  Canons  of  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey,  and 
which  that  Convention  is  bound  to  obey. 

"  Unless  therefore  the  Canons  of  the  General  Convention  give  that 
of  New  Jersey  the  authority  claimed,  it  does  not  exist,  but  is  an 
illegal  usurpation. 

"  The  only  Canon  in  existence  on  the  subject,  is  that  entitled 
*  Trial  of  a  Bishop,'  the  Hid  Canon  of  1844. 

"  That  Canon  gives  the  Convention  one  right,  and  only  one  right ; 
unless  therefore  that  right  be  the  one  now  claimed,  or  necessarily 
involves  it  as  a  legal  sequence,  it  has  no  existence. 

"  It  is  futile  to  involve  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  Canons,  for  how- 
ever explicit,  they  are  not  of  higher  authority  than  the  Canon  of 
our  General  Convention — even  if  they  be  any  rule  to  bind  us 
under  any  circumstances.  The  question  is,  What  does  the  law  of 
our  Church  say  on  the  matter  ? 

"  Now  that  Canon  declares  (Section  I.)  that  the  trial  of  a  Bishop 
shall  be  on  a  Presentment  in  writing,  that  it  may  be  for  any  crime 
or  immorality,  &c.,  &c.,  and  then  proceeds : 

"  '  Such  presentment  may  be  made  by  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese 
to  which  the  accused  Bishop  belongs,  two-thirds  of  each  Order  pres- 
ent concurring :  provided,  that  two-thirds  of  the  Clergy  entitled  to 
seats  in  said  Convention  be  present ;  and  provided  also,  that  two- 
thirds  of  the  parishes  canonically  in  union  with  said  Convention  be 
represented  therein,  and  the  vote  thereon  shall  not  in  any  case  take 
place  on  the  same  day  on  which  the  resolution  to  present  is  offered ; 
and  it  may  also  be  made  by  any  three  Bishops  of  this  Church.' 

"  This  is  every  word  giving  the  Convention  any  power  in  the 
matter  at  all. 

"  Prior  to  this  Canon  no  such  case  could  have  arisen,  consequently 
no  power  can  have  existed  prior  to  the  Canon,  and  we  have  only  to 
ascertain  its  meaning. 

"  Bearing  in  mind  the  explanation  above  given,  of  the  relations 
of  the  inquest  instituting  a  prosecution,  and  the  Court  trying  the 
Presentment,  there  is  no  doubt  to  which  of  those  bodies  the  Con- 
vention is  assigned. 

"  It  is  plainly  an  inquest  to  put  a  party  on  trial,  not  a  court 
finally  to  try  any  one  or  any  thing. 

"It  is  also,  in  the  event  of  its  making  a  presentment,  made  a 


(     62    ) 

party  to  such  presentment  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  that  pre- 
sentment. 

"  These  are  its  only  functions.  But  if  so,  there  is  an  end  of  the 
legal  claims  of  the  Committee,  for — 

"  An  inquest  can  try  nothing  so  as  to  make  2,  final  decision  upon 
it.  Its  whole  action  contemplates  and  is  preparatory  to  a  trial. 
Therefore  the  investigation  of  the  Convention  was  not  a  trial — the 
resolution  of  the  Convention  fully  exculpating  the  Bishop,  was  not 
a  verdict  nor  a  judgment  of  acquittal.  It  was  in  no  sense  final 
or  conclusive  on  any  one.  The  same  Convention  could  the  next 
day  have  renewed  the  investigation,  found  a  Presentment  and  put 
the  Bishop  in  course  of  prosecution  before  this  very  Court. 

"It  is  therefore  a  gross  misuse  of  legal  language  to  speak  of  his 
having  been  acquitted,  and  of  a  verdict  in  his  favour. 

"  He  has  never  been  tried,  and  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey,  if 
it  had  assumed  to  try  him,  had  no  jurisdiction  so  to  do. 

"  All  that  the  Convention  did,  was — that  they  did  not  present 
him. 

"But  the  Canon  does  not  say  that  the  failure  of  the  Convention  to 
present  shall  destroy  the  power  of  three  Bishops  to  make  a  pre- 
sentment. If  it  did,  it  would  be  an  absurdity,  for  if  the  Conven- 
tion did  not  act,  the  Bishops  by  the  hypothesis  could  not.  If  the 
Convention  did  present,  then  the  presentment  by  the  Bishops  would 
be  nugatory. 

"  Nor  does  the  Canon  say  that  the  refusal  of  the  Convention  to 
present  shall  prevent  a  subsequent  presentment,  and  for  the  same 
crimes,  by  the  Bishops.  It  bases  no  rights  of  either  presenting 
power  on  the  failure  or  the  refusal  of  the  other.  It  settles  no  ques- 
tions of  precedence  in  time  or  dignity,  consequently  none  exist. 

"Nor  does  any  analogy  of  other  presenting  bodies  lend  counte- 
nance to  the  supposition  that  a  refusal  of  one  to  present,  prevents 
another  from  presenting.  Such  a  thing  is  unheard  of  in  any  law 
book.  It  therefore  has  no  foundation  in  the  analogies  of  jurispru- 
dence, nor  is  the  analogy  of  concurrent  jurisdictions  applicable. 
That  applies  only  where  one  of  two  different  tribunals,  both  hav- 
ing cognizance  of  the  same  matter,  has  the  matter  in  hand.  In 
that  case  another  concurrent  court  will  not  touch  it.  But  that  is 
not  this  case.  Both  presenting  bodies  are  the  instruments  of  the 
same  court.  "Whichsoever  makes  the  presentment,  the  trial  is 
before  the  same  court.  No  question  of  precedence  can  ever  arise, 
except  as  to  the  right  to  conduct  a  prosecution  actually  instituted, 


(    63    ) 

and  tlaen  tlie  party  which  first  instituted  it  would  hold  the  control 
of  its  own  proceeding. 

"  But  that  question  would  not  arise  if  one  presented  after  the  other 
had  refused  to  present ;  for  there  would  not  be  any  attempt  to  carry- 
on  two  prosecutions  before  the  same  or  concurrent  tribunals  at  the 
same  time.  It  would  be  more  like  the  case  of  a  new  suit  in  one 
court,  after  a  nonsuit  or  other  inconclusive  termination  of  a  prior 
suit  in  another  tribunal,  which  is  no  bar  to  the  second  suit, 

"  The  right  o^ priority  set  up  for  the  Convention  has  no  foundation 
in  the  Canon,  and  it  is  in  itself  unmeaning.  If  it  mean  that  the 
Convention  have  the  first  right  to  present  their  Bishop,  one  of  two 
results  follows.  Either  the  right  of  the  Bishops  depends  on  the 
action  of  the  Convention,  or  it  does  not.  If  it  do  not,  then  it 
is  independent  and  free  from  its  influence.  If  it  do,  then  the 
Bishops,  if  they  present  at  all,  must  either  present  before  the  Con- 
vention have  acted  at  all  and  then  the  prior  right  is  given  up.  Or 
they  must  present  after  the  Convention  have  presented ;  and  then  it 
is  an  absurdity:  or  they  must  present  after  the  Convention  have 
refused  to  present ;  and  then  we  are  in  the  very  case  of  our  right. 

"  It  is  plain,  therefore,  not  only  that  the  Canon  does  not  give  any 
such  priority,  but  that  it  is  an  absurdity ;  or  it  proves  that  we  are 
rightly  before  this  Court,  and  above  the  power  of  the  Convention. 

"  If  it  should  be  said,  that  in  the  absence  of  any  special  priority 
given  to  the  Convention,  its  refusal  bars  the  subsequent  right  of  the 
Bishops;  then  it  must  follow,  by  the  same  reason,  that  a  prior 
refusal  of  three  Bishops  bars  the  Convention ;  and  a  prior  refusal  of 
any  three  Bishops  bars  the  whole  bench  of  Bishops  and  the  Con- 
vention ;  which  is  an  absurdity. 

"  The  simple  truth  is,  that  the  General  Convention  meant  to  create 
two  sources  of  prosecutions,  to  protect  the  purity  of  the  Church. 
The  Convention  might  need  to  protect  its  Diocese ;  the  whole 
Church  was  interested  in  the  purity  of  each  of  its  Bishops.  The 
General  Convention  therefore  gave  the  Local  Convention,  as  well 
as  the  whole  Body  of  Bishops,  the  right  of  calling  any  Bishop  to 
account  before  his  peers. 

"The  spirit  of  ancient  Canons  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter; 
for  such  a  thing  as  a  trial  of  a  Bishop  before  or  by  his  Diocesan  Con- 
vention or  Presbytery,  is  unknown  in  ancient  history.  Any  respon- 
sible man  could  put  the  Bishop  on  his  defence  before  the  Synod  of 
the  Province,  and  no  presentment  by  a  Local  Convention  was  requi- 
site.    "We  throw  more  guards  around  our  Bishops. 


(    64    ) 

"  The  suggestion  that  the  Convention  has  sole  cognizance  of  pre- 
sentments for  crime,  and  that  three  Bishops  can  present  only  for 
heresy,  is  merely  the  interpolation  of  a  proposed  Canon,  never 
enacted,  into  the  midst  of  a  Canon  which  it  was  intended  to  repeal, 
but  did  not  repeal.  In  point  of  fact,  the  Convention  never  for  a 
moment  had  before  it  any  proposition  on  which  the  Canon  autho- 
rizes it  to  pronounce.  It  never  was  moved  to  present  the  Bishop.  It 
is  only  on  such  a  motion  that  the  Canon  gives  it  any  rights  at  all. 
It  requires  the  presentment  by  a  Convention  to  be  by  resolution  to 
-present;  and  forbids  the  vote  to  be  taken  on  the  same  day  on 
which  the  resolution  is  offered.  But  there  was  never  a  resolution  to 
present  at  all,  and  therefore  the  Convention  never  took  the  first 
step  to  acquire  any  rights  under  the  Canon. 

"  But  all  this  discussion  might  have  been  cut  short,  but  for  the 
importance  of  the  principle  involved,  by  the  simple  and  decisive 
consideration  that  the  Convention  of  1852  was  not  so  organized  as 
to  have  even  jurisdiction  of  the  question  of  presentment. 

"  The  Canon  requires  that  for  such  purpose  two-thirds  of  the 
Clergy  entitled  to  seats  should  be  present. 

"  There  were  thirty-seven  or  thirty-eight  Clergymen  so  entitled 
in  New  Jersey ;  but  only  twenty-two  were  present,  which  do  not 
amount  to  two-thirds  of  thirty-seven  or  thirty-eight. 

"  The  Canon  likewise  requires  that  two-thirds  of  the  parishes 
canonically  in  union  with  the  Convention,  be  represented. 

"  But  though  there  are  fifty-nine  parishes  in  New  Jersey,  only 
twenty-eight  were  so  represented. 

"  It  follows  that  the  Convention  was  never  so  constituted  as  to  be 
able  to  make  a  valid  presentment  of  the  Bishop.  If,  therefore,  a 
refusal  to  present  be  of  any  avail  at  all,  it  must  be  at  least  by  a 
Convention  whose  opposite  vote  could  have  given  an  opposite 
result.  The  refusal  of  this  Convention  was,  therefore,  a  nullity  for 
lack  of  jurisdiction. 

"  The  Presentment,  therefore,  stands  clear  of  all  difficulties.  If  so, 
then  the  Canon  expressly  excludes  any  and  every  other  proceeding 
by  this  Court,  besides  the  trial  of  this  Presentment.  The  second  sec- 
tion declares,  that  upon  a  presentment  made  in  either  of  the  modes 
pointed  out  in  Sec.  I.  of  this  Canon,  the  course  of  proceeding  shall  he 
asfoUoivs. 

"Now  we  have  a  Presentment  in  one  of  those  modes,  formally  spe- 
cifying crimes  and  immoralities  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  accused, 
of  which  this  Court  has  jurisdiction. 


(    65    ) 

"  The  Canon,  therefore,  commands  you  to  proceed  to  tlie  trial  of  the 
Presentment,  whether  you  approve  or  disapprove  of  the  making  of 
it,  whether  you  think  it  just  or  unjust,  for  the  good  or  for  the  injury 
of  the  Church. 

"  Your  functions  are  simply  judicial,  you  have  no  discretion  to 
proceed  or  not  to  proceed.  The  Presentment  being  found  and 
ordered  for  trial,  you,  like  every  other  Court,  are  the  passive  judges 
of  the  law  and  of  the  fact ;  you  take  no  steps,  you  cannot  refuse  to 
proceed  at  the  instance  of  any  person,  till  that  Presentment  be  finally 
disposed  of  by  trial  and  judgment,  ending  for  ever  the  cause,  excul- 
pating or  convicting  the  accused,  and  placing,  between  him  and  the 
future,  the  record  of  his  conviction  or  acquittal,  for  a  perpetual  me- 
morial ;  a  protection  of  the  accused,  or  of  the  Church ;  an  end  of 
the  controversy,  and  of  the  floating  scandal  which  now  vexes  the 
Church  and  tarnishes  her  name. 

"  In  conclusion,  we  beg  leave  to  say,  that  we  regard  this  whole  ap- 
plication as  irregular,  and  in  plain  violation  of  the  express  words 
of  the  Canon,  which  says,  '  upon  a  presentment,  the  course  of  pro- 
ceeding shall  he  as  folloius,'  and  does  not  prescribe  or  allow  of  any 
such  intervention  of  a  Diocesan  Convention  ; 

"  That  we  regard  it  as  highly  derogatory  to  the  Episcopal  Order, 
that  a  Diocesan  Convention  should  assume  the  precedence  over 
them  in  commencing  prosecutions  against  Bishops,  when  the  Canon 
subjects  the  Convention  to  many  limitations  and  provisos,  but 
leaves  any  three  Bishops  free  to  present  when  and  as  they 
choose ; 

"  That  we  regard  it  as  of  evil  example  thus  to  allow  the  claims  of 
a  Diocesan  Legislature  to  intervene  and  arrest  the  course  of  justice, 
with  matters  not  of  judicial  cognizance,  but  appealing  to  the  preju- 
dices, the  feelings,  or  the  fears  of  the  Bishops ;  and  we  cannot  but 
ask,  what  would  have  been  thought  of  the  Legislature  of  Mississippi, 
had  it  sent  a  Committee  to  New  Orleans  to  remonstrate  with  the 
Court  of  the  United  States  against  subjecting  their  governor,  Quit- 
man, to  a  trial,  or  of  the  judges  of  that  Court,  had  they  debated,  for 
days,  the  propriety  of  dismissing  the  prosecution  because  of  such 
remonstrance  ? 

"  We  further  submit  that  the  wisdom  of  the  General  Convention,  in 
providing  two  presenting  bodies,  has  been  signally  illustrated  in  this 
cause,  for  it  must  be  apparent  that  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey 
was  incapable  of  sitting  even  as  a  fair  inquest  on  a  Presentment. 

"  We  now  stand  here  full-handed  with  proof  of  the  allegations  of. 

6 


(    QQ    ) 

tlie  Presentment,  and  earnestly  pray  you,  by  your  regard  for  your 
sacred  vow,  faithfully  to  administer  the  discipline  of  this  Church ; 
by  your  regard  for  its  purity  and  reputation,  by  the  stain  which  the 
dismissal  of  this  prosecution  must  leave  on  its  spotless  robe,  not  to 
inflict  so  deadly  a  blow  on  it,  as  to  leave  the  accused  to  be  numbered 
among  its  chief  Pastors,  untried  and  unacquitted. 

"We  do  not  desire  to  shrink  from  the  responsibilities  of  our 
position.  We  stand  here  as  the  Presenters  of  the  accused,  because 
we  believe  him  guilty.  We  ask  for  his  trial,  because  we  expect  to 
prove  the  Presentment  we  have  made. 

"With  such  expectations  and  belief,  it  would  be  hypocrisy  to  pre- 
tend to  wish  him  to  be  freed  from  the  prosecution,  without  regard 
to  the  manner  and  the  means. 

"If  he  be  innocent,  none  will  rejoice  more  than  we  at  his  acquittal. 
If  he  be  guilty,  we  shall  lament,  as  we  are  bound  to  do,  his  escape 
from  the  legal  penalty  by  any  contrivance  of  judicial  novelties. 

"  We  ask  a  fair,  full,  and  impartial  trial ;  and  we  pray  God  to 
give  to  the  Kespondent  a  good  deliverance. 

"  William  Meade,  D.  D., 

"Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Epis.  Ch.  of  Virginia. 
"Chas.  p.  McIlvaine,  D.  D., 

"Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Epis.  Ch.  in  Ohio. 
"George  Burgess,  D.  D., 

"  Bishop  of  the  Prot  Epis.  Ch.  in  Maine.''' 

The  Bishop  of  Indiana  offered  the  following  Preambles  and  Res- 
olutions : 

Whereas,  previous  to  the  making  of  the  Presentment  now  before 
this  Court,  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  had  investigated  most  of 
the  matters  contained  therein,  and  had  determined  that  there  was 
no  ground  for  Presentment :  therefore, 

Resolved,  That,  as  to  the  matters  thus  acted  upon  by  said  Con- 
vention, this  Court  is  not  called  upon  to  proceed  further. 

Whereas,  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  stands  pledged  to  investi- 
gate any  charges  against  its  Bishop  that  may  be  presented  from  any 
responsible  source;  and  whereas,  a  Special  Convention  has  been 
called,  shortly  to  meet,  in  reference  to  the  new  matters  contained  in 
the  Presentment  now  before  this  Court :  therefore. 

Resolved,  That  this  Court,  relying  upon  the  said  pledge,  do  not 
now  proceed  to  any  further  action  in  the  premises. 


(    67    ) 

Ordered,  That  the  above  Preambles  and  Resolutions  be  laid  upon 
the  table,  for  the  present. 

The  Court  then  adjourned. 


Camden,  New  Jersey,  October  12,  1852. ) 
10^  o'clock,  A.M.  ) 

The  Court  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  as  at  the  last  Session. 

The  Session  was  opened  with  the  Litany  and  Prayers,  by  the 
President. 

The  Minutes  of  the  last  Session  were  read  and  approved. 

The  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  asked  for  an  opportunity  to  examine 
the  reply  of  the  three  Presenting  Bishops  to  the  application  made  by 
the  Committee  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey.     Whereupon,  it  was 

Ordered,  That,  for  this  purpose,  the  Court  take  a  recess  until 
3  o'clock,  P.  M. 


3  o'clock^  p.  M. 
The  Court  met. 

The  Presenting  Bishops  having  objected  to  further  discussions 
growing  out  of  the  Representation  of  the  Committee  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  New  Jersey,  and  having  claimed  that  the  Bishop  presented 
be  now  called  upon  to  plead  to  the  Presentment :  it  was. 

On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania, 

Ordered,  That  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  have  leave  to  make 
informally  any  statements  which  he  may  think  necessary  to  correct 
what  he  regards  as  misapprehensions  of  fact,  contained  in  the  Reply 
of  the  three  Presenting  Bishops. 

The  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  then  proceeded  to  make  his  statement 
to  the  Court. 

The  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived. 

Ordered,  That  the  Court  do  now  adjourn. 


(    68    ) 


^ixJ|  gag. 

Burlington,  October  13,  1852. 
The  Court  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  as  yesterday ;  witli  the  exception  of  the  Bishop  of 
Florida. 

The  Session  was  opened  with  the  Litany  and  Prayers,  by  the 
President. 

The  Minutes  of  the  last  Session  were  read  and  approved. 

The  Preambles  and  Resolutions  offered  by  the  Bishop  of  Indiana 
were  called  up ;  and  the  Bishop  read  a  statement  containing  his 
views  in  relation  to  them. 

On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania, 

Ordered,  That,  before  the  Members  of  the  Court  be  called  upon 
to  present  their  views  upon  the  questions  now  before  the  Court, 
the  Presenting  Bishops  and  the  Bishop  Respondent  be  heard  upon 
said  questions,  if  they  desire  it. 

At  1^  o'clock,  P.  M.,  the  Court  took  a  recess. 


3  o'clock,  p.  M. 
The  Court  met. 

The  Bishop  of  Florida  appeared,  and  took  his  seat. 

Letters  were  received  and  read,  from  the  Bishop  and  the  As- 
sistant Bishop  of  Connecticut,  excusing  their  absence  in  consequence 
of  sickness. 

The  Presenting  Bishops  and  the  Bishop  Respondent  having  been 
fully  heard,  and  the  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived, 

The  Court  then  adjourned. 


(    69    ) 


^tkwWi  gag. 

Burlington,  October  14,  1852. 

The  Court  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present,  as  yesterday. 

The  Session  was  opened  with  the  Litany  and  Prayers,  by  the 
President. 

The  Minutes  of  the  last  Session  were  read  and  approved. 

The  Members  of  the  Court  proceeded,  in  order,  to  express  their 
views  upon  the  Preambles  and  Resolutions  proposed  by  the  Bishop 
of  Indiana. 

The  Clerk  asked  leave  of  absence  for  the  afternoon's  session : 
which  was  granted. 

At  1^  o'clock,  P.  M.,  the  Court  took  a  recess  until  3  o'clock,  p.  m. 

3  o'clock,  p.  M. 

The  Court  met. 

The  Members  of  the  Court  resumed  the  expression  of  their  views, 
in  order,  upon  the  Preambles  and  Resolutions  proposed  by  the 
Bishop  of  Indiana. 

The  regular  hour  having  arrived, 

The  Court  then  adjourned. 


Burlington,  October  15,  1852. 
The  Court  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
The  Session  was  opened  with  the  Litany  and  Prayers,  by  the 
President. 

The  Minutes  of  the  last  Session  were  read  and  approved. 
On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania, 


(    70    ) 

Ordered,  That  the  Opinions  of  the  Members  of  the  Court  be  now 
delivered. 

"Whereupon  it  was  decreed,  that 

Whereas,  Previous  to  the  making  of  the  Presentment  now  before 
this  Court,  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  had  investigated  most  of 
the  matters  contained  therein,  and  had  determined  that  there  was  no 
ground  for  Presentment :  therefore, 

Ordered,  That,  as  to  the  matters  thus  acted  upon  by  said  Conven- 
tion, this  Court  is  not  called  upon  to  proceed  further. 

Whereas,  The  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  stands  pledged  to  investi- 
gate any  charges  against  its  Bishop  that  may  be  presented  from  any 
responsible  source ;  and  whereas,  a  Special  Convention  has  been 
called,  shortly  to  meet,  in  reference  to  the  new  matters  contained  in 
the  Presentment  now  before  this  Court :  therefore, 

Ordered,  That  this  Court,  relying  upon  the  said  pledge,  do  not 
now  proceed  to  any  further  action  in  the  premises. 

From  this  Decree  six  Members  of  the  Court  dissented,  to  wit :  the 
Bishops  of  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Delaware,  Assistant  of  Virginia, 
Massachusetts,  and  Pennsylvania. 

The  Bishop  of  Virginia,  on  behalf  of  the  Presenting  Bishops,  then 
offered  to  put  in  a  copy  of  a  Presentment,  bearing  date  upon  the 
30th  day  of  March,  1852  ;  and  asked  that  the  Court  now  proceed  to 
Trial  thereon. 

On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Maryland, 

Ordered,  That  this  Court  decline  to  receive  the  same. 

Ordered,  That  the  Bishop  Eespondent  have  leave  to  enter  the 
following  upon  record : 

"  The  Eespondent,  with  leave  of  the  Court,  records  his  exception 
to  the  application  made  to  this  Court  by  the  Presenting  Bishops,  to 
offer  another  Presentment,  and  proceed  to  trial  on  the  same." 

Ordered,  That  the  Presenting  Bishops  have  leave  to  enter  the 
following  upon  record : 

"  The  Presenting  Bishops  record  their  exception  to  the  application 
of  the  Eespondent  for  changing  the  place  of  the  meeting  of  this 
Court  from  Camden,  the  place  appointed  by  the  Presiding  Bishop, 
to  Burlington." 


(    71    ) 

On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Delaware, 

Ordered,  That  the  President  of  the  Court,  the  Bishop  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  the  Rev.  the  Clerk,  with  the  assistance  of  the  Rev.  the 
Assistant  Clerk,  take  order  for  the  publication  of  the  Records  of  this 
Court,  and  the  opinions  of  the  Judges,  and  for  securing  the  copy- 
right of  the  same. 

From  the  above  Order,  the  Bishop  of  Maryland  recorded  his 
dissent,  as  follows : 

"  As  regarding  the  procedure  contemplated  by  the  proposed  order 
as  utterly  beneath  the  dignity  of  this  Court,  and  in  every 
respect  improper  and  inexpedient,  fraught  with  evil  itself,  and 
fruitful  in  resulting  evil,  both  immediate  and  contingent,  the 
undersigned  dissents. 

"  William  Rollinson  Whittingham, 

"Bishop  of  Maryland." 

The  Minutes  of  the  Session  were  read  and  approved. 

On  motion  of  the  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania, 

The  Court  then  adjourned  sine  die. 


(     72    ) 


OPTIONS  OF  THE  MEMBERS  OF  THE  COURT. 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  VERMONT, 

PRESIDENT    OF    THE    COURT. 

The  motion  now  before  the  Court,  to  my  mind,  appears  opposed 
to  every  sound  principle  of  justice.  The  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  has 
been  accused  of  sundry  grave  offences,  by  the  three  Bishops  of 
Virginia,  Ohio,  and  Maine,  under  the  authority  of  the  Hid  Canon 
of  1844,  and  this  Court  has  been  summoned  and  organized  for  the 
express  purjDOse  of  trying  the  Presentment.  It  has  been  read 
before  us,  accordingly,  in  due  form,  but  instead  of  calling  on  the 
accused  party  to  plead,  the  Court  (six  Bishops  dissenting)  has 
granted  leave  to  a  Committee  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  acting 
by  the  order  of  her  Convention,  to  claim  on  behalf  of  that  Diocese 
a  right  to  arrest  our  judicial  action,  on  the  ground  that  the  charges 
made  against  their  Bishop  have  been  sufficiently  investigated  by  a 
Committee  of  seven  laymen,  that  the  Bishop  has  been  pronounced 
fully  acquitted  of  all  blame,  and  that  their  "  legal  and  canonical 
2iOsition  and  rights"  justify  them  in  "earnestly  and  respectfully  urging 
the  Court  of  Bishojjs  to  consider  whether  {apart  from  all  abstract 
questions  of  power)  it  will  he  wise,  or  just,  or  for  the  peace  of  God's 
Church,  to  proceed  further  upon  the  charges  laid  before  them."  The 
three  Presenting  Bishops  opposed  the  reception  of  this  application, 
and  I  concurred  with  five  other  members  of  the  Court,  in  the 
opinion  that  it  ought  not  to  be  admitted,  because  the  Diocese,  in 
its  own  right,  cannot  legally  become  a  party  on  the  record,  being 
neither  inculpated  in  the  Presentment,  nor  capable  of  being  made, 
canonically,  subject  to  our  jurisdiction.  I  held,  however,  that  the 
effect  or  validity  of  its  action,  whatever  it  may  be,  might  be 
regularly  brought  before  the  Court,  in  case  the  accused  Bishop 


(    73    ) 

should  urge  it  in  the  form  of  a  plea  in  bar  or  in  abatement,  or  on 
a  motion  to  quash  the  Presentment,  either  of  which  courses  was 
open  to  him.  It  would  also  be  competent,  as  I  conceived,  for  him 
to  use  the  Resolutions  of  his  Convention,  if  he  thought  fit,  as 
testimony  on  the  trial,  from  which  he  might  very  properly  argue 
that  the  charges  against  him  could  not  be  true,  so  long  as  the 
opinion  of  the  Diocese  was  so  warmly  in  his  favour.  But  since  the 
Bishop  himself  expressly  refused  to  adopt  the  act  of  his  Conven- 
tion in  any  of  these  modes,  and  insisted  that  his  Diocese  should  be 
heard  on  their  own  independent  right,  as  if  they  were  a  sort  of 
superior  Court  empowered  to  issue  a  writ  of  prohibition,  I  could 
not  consent  to  admit  an  application  which  seemed,  to  my  mind, 
entirely  inconsistent  with  the  duty  of  our  Office,  and  utterly 
irreconcilable  with  any  legal  or  ecclesiastical  principle. 

The  Court,  however,  by  a  majority  of  one,  have  decided  other- 
wise, and  the  application  of  the  Diocese  has  been  granted.  The 
Committee  of  the  Convention  have  read  an  elaborate  and  ingenious 
argument  to  sustain  their  claim.  The  three  Presenting  Bishops 
have  replied  in  a  written  answer.  The  accused  Bishop  has  pressed 
upon  the  Court,  with  much  energy  and  eloquence,  what  he  regards 
to  be  the  rights  of  his  independent  Diocese.  And  now  it  is  moved 
accordingly,  (not  on  behalf  of  the  Bishop,  since  he  has  not  yet  been 
called  upon  to  plead  or  answer  to  the  Presentment  in  any  form 
whatever,  but  on  behalf  of  the  Diocese,)  that  this  Court  shall  arrest 
the  proceedings  and  dismiss  the  case,  in  consideration  of  the  action 
which  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  have  already  taken ;  and  in 
further  consideration  of  the  action  which  they  intend  to  take,  at 
their  next  meeting  on  the  27th  of  the  current  month.  •  That  is  to 
say,  in  plain  words,  that  we,  the  Bishops  of  the  Church,  who  are 
the  only  tribunal  possessing  the  canonical  right  and  power  to  try 
the  accused,  shall  abandon  our  dut}',  and  refuse  to  judge  the  cause, 
because  seven  laymen,  appointed  by  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey, 
have  investigated  the  bulk  of  the  charges,  and  the  remainder  are 
to  be  investigated,  in  due  time,  under  the  same  authority ! 

It  is  certainly  my  wish  to  treat  the  question  with  all  respect  and 
courtesy,  but  I  cannot  disguise  my  admiration  at  the  boldness  and 
singularity  of  this  claim.  For  here  is  a  body  who  have  no 
judicial  powers  whatever,  asserting  a  right  to  anticipate  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  only  regular  Court — seven  laymen  superseding  the 
solemn  duty  of  fourteen  Bishops— a  Diocesan  Convention  ap- 
pointing a  Committee  to  take  the  work  of  episcopal  discipline  out 


(    74    ) 

of  episcopal  hands — a  fraction  of  the  American  Church  inde- 
pendently resolving  that  the  law  of  our  highest  legislature,  the 
General  Convention,  shall  be  virtually  set  at  naught  by  their 
paramount  act  of  nullification !  Let  this  novel  kind  of  juris- 
prudence be  extended  from  the  Church  to  the  Commonwealth, 
and  we  shall  presently  behold  a  marvellous  revolution  in  the 
administration  of  justice.  On  the  same  principle,  a  committee  of 
private  soldiers,  appointed  by  the  regiment,  may  investigate  the 
charges  against  their  Colonel,  pronounce  him  acquitted,  and  then 
intervene  to  save  him  from  a  Court  Martial !  A  town  meeting 
may  settle  the  merits  of  an  indictment,  and  relieve  the  judges  and 
the  jury  from  all  responsibility  !  The  legislature  of  a  single  State 
may  vote  that  a  man,  arraigned  for  the  violation  of  an  act  of 
Congress,  having  proved  his  innocence  to  their  satisfaction,  ought 
not  to  be  tried  before  the  constituted  authority  !  Nay,  the  father 
of  a  family  may  even  have  a  domestic  tribunal  of  his  children  and 
his  personal  friends,  to  decide  beforehand  the  grounds  of  a  public 
prosecution,  and  the  lawful  judges  may  be  told  to  go  home,  (as  this 
Court  has  actually  been,)  because  their  work  has  been  already 
done  sufficiently  for  all  the  ends  of  justice ! 

But  notwithstanding  the  manifold  absurdities  which  the  principle 
thus  introduced  by  the  Convention  of  ISIew  Jersey  seems  to  involve, 
according  to  my  judgment,  I  owe  it  to  my  respect  for  the  sincerity 
and  good  intentions  of  those  who  have  adopted  it,  to  consider  their 
argument  in  detail.  And  I  willingly  concede  to  it  all  that  can  be 
claimed,  on  the  score  of  eloquence  and  ingenuity. 

The  case  comes  before  us  under  the  Hid  Canon  of  184-1,  which 
provides  that  a  Bishop  may  be  presented  for  heresy,  or  for  any 
crime  or  immorality,  by  the  Convention  of  his  Diocese,  and  that  "he 
may  also  be  presented  by  any  three  Bishops."  This  part  of  the 
Canon  (the  only  part  material  to  the  present  question)  was  copied 
from  the  previous  law,  adopted  by  the  General  Convention  three 
years  before.  It  fell  to  my  lot  to  have  first  moved  the  introduction 
of  the  rule,  and  therefore  I  claim  to  know  the  real  spirit  and  mean- 
ing of  it.  And  tliis  I  shall  explain,  according  to  the  fixed  maxim 
of  legal  interpretation,  which  always  looks  to  the  previous  state  of 
the  law,  in  order  to  determine  the  true  intent  of  the  alteration. 

Let  it  be  well  observed,  then,  that  from  the  first  settlement  of  our 
American  Church,  in  the  year  1789,  the  mode  of  trying  Bishops 
was  left  to  the  Dioceses,  by  the  express  words  of  the  Constitution, 
so  that  it  was  necessary  to  alter  the  Constitution  before  the  Canon 


(    75    ) 

of  1841  could  be  adopted.  That  alteration,  accordingly,  was  pro- 
posed in  1838,  establishing  the  present  rule,  as  laid  down  in  our 
sixth  Article,  "The  mode  of  trying  Bishops  shall  be  provided  by 
the  General  Convention."  Up  to  the  year  1841,  when  this  Article 
was  adopted,  the  Dioceses,  each  in  its  own  way,  had  the  entire  con- 
trol of  our  most  important  branch  of  discipline ;  and,  with  the  single 
exception  of  Vermont,  a  Canon  for  the  trial  of  the  Bishop  stood  at 
the  head  of  every  system  of  Diocesan  legislation. 

The  object  of  the  change,  therefore,  was  not  what  the  Convention 
of  New  Jersey,  through  its  Committee,  has  assumed,  viz.,  "First, 
to  grant  the  poiver  of  2yrese7itme7it  to  the  Diocese,  and  second,  to  guard 
and  control  that  power,  so  as  to  prevent  liasty,  partial,  or  doubtful  pre- 
sentments." It  was  not  the  first,  because  the  Dioceses  not  only  had 
the  power  of  presentment  already,  but  that  power  was  even  confined 
to  them  alone.  And  it  was  not  the  second,  because  there  was  no 
danger  of  hasty,  partial,  or  doubtful  presentments ;  and  if  there  had 
been,  there  is  not  a  word  in  the  Canon  which  guards  against  this 
supposed  peril.  Nor  was  such  a  provision  necessary  ;  for  the  ap- 
prehension of  that  sort  of  evil  is  purely  imaginary.  The  present- 
ment of  a  Bishop  is  too  serious  a  matter  to  be  lightly  undertaken. 
It  involves,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  a  vast  amount  of  odium, 
of  time,  of  expense  and  trouble.  And  hence  the  real  danger  has 
been,  in  all  ages  of  the  Church,  not  that  Bishops  were  likely  to  be 
tried  too  easily,  but  that  they  were  seldom  likely  to  be  tried  at  all. 

Instead  of  these  supposed  objects,  the  design  of  the  change  intro- 
duced in  the  Constitution  and  the  Canon  was  to  give  the  power  of 
presenting  a  Bishop  to  three  of  his  Brethren,  and  to  place  the  mode 
of  proceeding  in  the  hands  of  the  General  Convention,  where  it 
properly  belongs.  True,  indeed,  the  old  power  of  the  Dioceses  to 
present  was  not  taken  away,  but  left  as  it  had  been.  A  concurrent 
power,  however,  was  conferred  upon  the  Bishops,  for  the  following 
reasons  ;  and  these  reasons,  to  every  mind  of  genuine  Catholic  prin- 
ciple, are  worthy  of  attention. 

First,  because,  from  the  earliest  days  of  primitive  Christianity,  it 
was  an  acknowledged  branch  of  the  Bishops'  official  duty  to  correct 
the  evils  which  might  arise  within  their  own  Order.  And  this  was 
so  universally  true,  that  there  is  not  a  single  instance  in  the  whole 
history  of  the  Church,  previous  to  our  American  system  of  the  year 
1789,  where  a  Diocesan  Convention  was  canonically  allowed  to  pre- 
sent their  Bishop. 

Secondly,  because  every  principle  of  religious  policy  would  die- 


(    76    ) 

tate  the  propriety  of  saving  the  Diocese,  as  much  as  possible,  from 
the  strife  and  confusion  -which  must  usually  arise,  through  the  agita- 
tion of  such  a  question.  The  assailing  of  a  Bishop  in  his  own  Con- 
vention can  hardly  ever  fail  to  arouse  the  bitterest  feeling  between 
his  friends  and  his  foes.  The  clergy  must  become  estranged  from 
each  other ;  families,  divided ;  parishes,  thrown  into  discord ;  and 
all  the  ordinary  course  of  duty,  disturbed  and  unhinged.  When, 
therefore,  a  presentment  may  be  necessary,  it  is  infinitely  better  for 
the  peace  of  the  Church  that  it  should  come  from  the  Bishops,  who, 
living  at  a  distance,  and  totally  disconnected  with  the  clergy  and 
the  people  of  the  accused  party,  can  perform  their  painful  duty 
without  lighting  up  the  flame  of  dissension  within  the  Diocese 
itself 

Thirdly,  because  the  very  sense  of  reverence  for  the  relation  be- 
tween the  Bishops  and  their  clergy,  must  approve  the  ancient  mode 
of  action  which  the  Canon  introduced.  For  that  relation  is  of  a 
patriarchal  character.  The  Bishop  in  the  midst  of  his  Diocese,  is 
likened  by  the  Church  to  a  father  amongst  his  children.  Hence, 
there  was  an  indecency,  and  almost  an  inhumanity,  in  our  American 
plan  of  forcing  the  Diocese  to  be  the  accuser ;  and  for  this  reason 
also,  it  was  felt  to  be  a  relief  to  place  the  power  in  other  hands. 
For  who  would  compel  a  man's  own  family  to  rise  up  against  him, 
however  guilty  he  might  be?  Who,  if  an  accusation  must  be 
brought,  would  not  prefer  to  keep  the  household  from  being  the 
prosecutors,  and  choose  rather  to  commit  the  distressing  duty  to  those 
who  might  at  least  fulfil  it  without  that  peculiar  anguish  which 
must  wring  the  heart,  when  the  children  rise  against  the  parent  ? 

And  fourthly,  because  it  was  reasonable  to  believe  that  the  work 
of  presentment  would  be  more  calmly  performed,  and  with  a  far 
better  prospect  of  solemn  and  impartial  consideration,  by  three 
Bishops,  for  the  very  reason  that  they  would  regard  the  matter  at  a 
distance,  free  from  all  the  local  prejudices,  the  personal  ties  and  af- 
fections, and  the  personal  dislikes,  which  might  naturally  be  ex- 
pected to  exist  amongst  the  clergy  and  the  laity  of  the  Diocese,  and 
which  must  be  likely,  in  most  cases,  to  affect  their  action.  Moreover, 
it  is  at  a  distance,  rather  than  at  home,  that  the  practical  effect  of 
reports  concerning  a  Bishop's  course  is  best  understood,  in  relation 
to  the  Church  at  large ;  because  his  Office  makes  him  a  public  man, 
and  of  all  public  men  it  is  emphatically  true  that  they  establish, 
sooner  or  later,  a  public  impression,  which  shows  the  real  bearing 
of  their  influence,  for  good  or  evil.     Hence,  it  is  easy  to  perceive 


(    77    ) 

tlic  profound  philosophy  of  the  Apostle's  maxim,  that  a  Bishop 
"  must  have  a  good  report  of  them  which  are  without,  lest  he  fall 
into  reproach  and  the  snare  of  the  devil."^'  For  the  devil  has  no 
snare  with  which  he  catches  more  unwary  souls,  than  the  reproach 
which  is  brought  against  the  Church  of  God  by  the  evil  character 
of  the  clergy.  And  if  a  Bishop  fall  into  that  snare,  he  cannot  fail 
to  injure,  instead  of  advancing,  the  great  mission  of  the  Church, 
as  "  the  light  of  the  world." 

For  these  reasons,  the  change  introduced  by  this  Canon  in  giving 
a  concurrent  power  to  any  three  Bishops  to  present  a  Brother,  in- 
stead of  confining  that  power,  as  before,  to  the  Convention  of  his 
Diocese,  was  hailed  by  all  intelligent  and  reflecting  Churchmen,  as  a 
most  important  step  in  the  right  direction.  I  have  shown  that  it 
was  no  hasty  movement,  but  the  very  contrary ;  since  it  was  neces- 
sary, in  order  to  make  the  change,  that  an  Article  of  the  Constitu- 
tion should  be  remodelled,  in  the  year  1838 ;  and  then  came  the 
Canon  of  1841,  which  laid  down  the  main  principle,  but  without 
any  details  of  the  mode  of  proceeding ;  and  lastly  came  the  present 
Canon  of  18-11:,  in  which  those  details  were  supplied.  During  the 
whole  of  those  nine  years,  there  was  no  opposition  upon  the  sub- 
ject, and  no  doubt  expressed  as  to  the  wisdom  and  propriety  of  the 
alteration.  It  was  undeniable  that  our  former  system  of  confining 
the  presentment  of  a  Bishop  to  his  own  Diocese,  was  a  pure  American 
novelty,  which  had  not  the  slightest  pretence  of  primitive  authority, 
and  which  could  be  found  in  no  other  regularly  constituted  Church 
throughout  the  world.  It  was  manifest,  to  every  sound  and  thought- 
ful mind,  that  it  grew  out  of  the  position  of  our  Church  in  her  infant 
state,  and  was,  at  the  time  of  its  adoption,  not  a  matter  of  choice 
so  much  as  of  necessity,  since  it  is  very  plain  that,  if  three  Bishops 
must  present  when  we  had  only  three  Bishops  altogether,  there 
could  be  no  administration  of  episcopal  discipline  at  all.  Indepen- 
dently of  that,  however,  it  is  well  known  that  the  pride  of  State 
Eights  was  then  the  general  feeling  every  where  throughout  our 
youthful  Union,  and  that  a  long  period  elapsed  before  the  American 
people  learned  the  meaning  of  a  true  national  amalgamation,  under 
the  teaching  of  that  eminent  man  who  has  been  so  justly  styled  the 
Defender  of  the  Constitution.  Ilence  it  was  a  natural  and  almost 
inevitable  result,  that  our  ecclesiastical  unity,  for  a  considerable 
period,  should  be  held  with  a  feeble  hand,  as  if  it  were  subordinate 
to  the  rights  of  sovereign  Dioceses,  since  each  State  constituted  a 

*  1  Tim.  iu.  7. 


(    78    ) 

Diocese,  and  the  political  feeling  in  the  one,  operated,  by  a  strong 
association,  upon  the  ecclesiastical  feeling  in  the  other.  It  needed 
time  for  the  Church,  as  well  as  for  the  States,  to  grow  up  to  matu- 
rity, so  as  to  realize  the  great  Catholic  principle  which  binds  us 
together  as  one  Body.  And  thus  we  have  only  come,  by  degrees,  to 
the  true  point  of  view,  which  shows  us  where  our  theory  needs  to 
be  reduced  to  practice.  And  much  still  remains  to  be  done  by  the 
Supreme  Council  of  the  Church  in  her  General  Convention,  before 
we  are  entirely  rid  of  the  old  prejudice  of  State-right  supremacy, 
which  sometimes  works,  with  surprising  force,  under  the  alluring 
name  of  the  Independence  of  Dioceses. 

I  have  been  thus  long  in  showing  the  meaning  and  spirit  of  the 
Canon  which  governs  this  case,  in  order  to  prove,  conclusively,  that 
it  never  could  have  been  intended  to  give  to  a  Diocesan  Conven- 
tion the  preference  over  any  three  Bishops,  either  in  priority  or  in 
authority,  which  the  Committee  of  New  Jersey  claim. 

For  it  is  a  settled  maxim  of  law,  as  well  as  of  reason,  that  the 
meaning  of  a  statute  is  to  be  gathered  chiefly  from  the  purpose  for 
the  sake  of  which  the  Legislature  has  enacted  it.  And  that  purpose, 
in  the  case  of  the  Canon,  was  undeniably  not  to  operate  upon  the 
existing  power  of  the  Dioceses,  which  was  left  just  as  it  was  before ; 
but  to  bring  in  the  old  and  primitive  right  of  the  Bishops  to 
institute  a  complaint  against  any  of  their  own  body,  without  being 
dependent,  as  they  had  been  hitherto,  upon  the  tardy  and  uncertain 
movement  of  a  Diocesan  Convention.  That  this,  therefore,  should 
be  taken  as  the  proper  key  to  the  construction  of  the  Canon,  seems 
to  me  the  only  legal  and  rational  conclusion : — First,  because  it  was 
the  sole  object  for  which  the  Canon  was  passed ;  Secondly,  because 
it  is  the  manifest  meaning  of  the  words  employed,  that  the  right 
of  presentment  shall  belong  to  the  Diocese  and  to  any  three  Bish- 
ops equally;  Thirdly,  because,  if  the  General  Convention  had 
intended  that  the  right  of  the  Bishops  could  not  be  exercised,  until 
the  Diocese  had  refused  or  unreasonably  delayed  to  act,  they  would 
have  declared  their  intention  by  saying,  that  in  case  the  Diocese 
should  not  proceed  within  a  certain  time,  it  should  then  he  law/id  for 
any  three  Bishops  to  present,  or  by  some  equivalent  expression. 
Instead  of  which,  the  Canon  sanctions  the  right  of  both  parties 
without  any  restriction,  and  we  have  no  power  to  bind  either  of  them 
in  subjection  to  the  other,  since  this  would  be  tantamount  to  making 
a  new  law.  It  results,  of  course,  that  as  the  Diocese  and  the  three 
Bishops  have  an  equal  right  to  present,  the  party  which  first  un- 


(    79    ) 

dertakes  the  act,  gains  the  jurisdiction.  For  no  rule  is  better  settled 
than  this:  "When  different  Courts  have  concurrent  jurisdiction, 
that  before  which  proceedings  are  first  instituted,  and  whose 
jurisdiction  first  attaches,  cannot  be  ousted  of  its  jurisdiction  by 
subsequent  proceedings  in  another  Court."*  Fourthly,  because,  if 
any  preference  were  given,  the  right  of  the  Bishops  has  the  best 
claim,  as  being  not  only  the  very  object  for  which  the  Canon  was 
passed,  but  the  most  accordant  with  the  whole  practice  of  primitive 
antiquity.  Fifthly,  because,  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Onderdonk, 
which  occurred  during  the  very  year  in  which  the  Canon  was 
enacted,  and  when  every  one  concerned  must  have  known  the 
meaning,  three  Bishops  proceeded  to  present  at  once,  without  the 
least  idea  of  waiting  for  the  action  of  the  Diocese,  and  the  lawyers 
of  the  Bishop,  who  stood  in  the  first  rank  for  professional  science, 
and  one  of  whom  (the  late  David  B.  Ogden,  Esq.)  was  a  Member 
of  the  General  Convention,  took  no  exception  to  their  course ;  al- 
though it  was  perfectly  certain  that  if  the  present  doctrine  of  New 
Jersey  could  then  have  been  maintained,  it  would  have  effectually 
protected  the  Bishop  from  the  possibility  of  a  trial. 

In  my  opinion,  therefore,  the  only  questions  to  be  determined 
are  these :  First,  What  right  has  the  Canon  given  to  the  Diocese 
of  New  Jersey  in  this  matter  ?  Certainly  not  a  right  to  try  their 
Bishop,  but  only  to  present  him  for  trial.  Secondly,  lias  the  Dio- 
cese exercised  this  right  of  presentment  in  time,  so  as  to  gain  a 
priority  over  the  three  Bishops  ?  Certainly  they  have  not,  because 
they  have  not  presented  him  at  all,  but  on  the  contrary,  after  the 
three  Bishops  had  actually  completed  their  first  Presentment,  and  a 
day  had  been  appointed  for  the  trial,  and  thus  the  whole  right  of 
Presentment  had  passed  into  their  hands,  the  Convention  of  New 
Jersey  undertake  to  try  the  case  themselves,  by  a  committee  of 
seven  laymen,  pronounce  a  triumphant  acquittal ;  and  on  the 
strength  of  this,  deny  the  right  of  the  three  Bishops  to  present, 
deny  our  right  to  try,  and  thus  virtually  nullify  the  Canon,  by 
claiming  the  whole  power  of  Presentment,  as  fully,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  as  if  no  such  law  had  ever  been  passed  by  the  General 
Convention. 

Their  mode  of  arriving  at  this  extraordinary  result  next  claims 
attention. 

The  Committee  of  New  Jersey  inform  us  that  the  Presenting 
Bishops,  in  a  certain  letter  which  they  addressed  to  the  accused 

*  Bacon'a  Abr.  2,  p.  826,  Phil.  Ed.  of  1843,  where  several  cases  are  cited. 


(    80    ) 

Bishop,  had  said  that,  "  it  is  only  when  a  Diocesan  Convention  refuses  to 
institute  inquiry,  or  neglects  TO  DO  it  for  too  long  a  period,  they  could  he 
EXPECTED  TO  INTERFERE,"  And  this  the  Committee  claim  as  a  con- 
struction of  the  Canon.  But  I  cannot  see  what  this  Court  has  to 
do  with  that  letter,  which,  for  aught  that  appears,  was  a  private 
communication,  and  which  is  stated  to  have  been  sent  a  consider- 
able time  previous  to  the  act  of  Presentment.  Were  it  otherwise, 
however,  I  do  not  perceive  that  the  extract,  which  the  Committee 
have  laid  before  us,  necessarily  bears  the  meaning  which  they  infer, 
because  the  three  Bishops  do  not  seem  to  be  alluding  to  their  power 
"Under  the  Canon,  but  only  to  the  circumstances  under  which  they 
could  be  expected  to  exercise  it.  Neither  is  it  competent  for  three 
Bishops,  not  acting  judicially,  to  fix  the  construction  of  the  Canon. 
Nor  would  such  a  construction  be,  as  the  Committee  assume,  "  in 
strict  accordance  with  the  meaning  of  the  Canon,  and  the  spirit  of 
all  ancient  law  f  for  in  truth  it  would  be  in  direct  opposition 
to  all  ancient  law,  and  to  all  ecclesiastical  practice  from  the  begin- 
ning. 

Eesting,  nevertheless,  on  this  erroneous  assumption,  the  Com- 
mittee of  New  Jersey  undertake  to  show  that  the  Convention  of 
the  Diocese  had  always  signified  its  readiness  to  act,  whenever  any 
responsible  persons  would  affix  their  names  to  written  charges 
against  their  Bishop,  involving  criminality.  To  this  I  answer,  that 
the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  do  not  appear,  at  any  of  their  ses- 
sions, to  have  adopted  such  a  resolution  ;  and  if  they  had,  readi- 
ness to  act  is  one  thing,  and  action  itself  is  another.  Indeed  the 
whole  of  the  real  action  of  the  Diocese  proves  that  at  no  time  what- 
ever did  the  Convention  even  contemplate  the  possibility  of  pre- 
senting their  Bishop.  On  the  contrary,  they  put  down  every 
movement  of  the  kind,  and  proclaimed  their  entire  confidence  in 
his  purity  and  integrity.  Assuredly  this  was  honourable  to  their 
Bishop,  and  laudable  in  themselves,  but  it  is  totally  irreconcilable 
with  the  profession  that  they  were  ready  to  present,  or  that  they 
had  the  slightest  idea  of  presenting  him. 

On  the  26th  of  May,  1852,  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  met, 
and  were  informed  by  the  Bishop  in  his  Address,  that  charges  were 
preferred  against  him  by  the  three  Bishops,  and  a  day  named  for 
trial.  On  this  the  Convention  proceeded  to  pass  the  following  Pre- 
amble and  Kesolution : 

"  Whereas,  The  exhibition  of  charges,  in  a  paper  signed  by  three 
Bishops  of  the  Church,  justifies  this  Convention,  consistently  with 


(    81    ) 

its  avowed  principles,  to  proceed  in  the  matter,  and  furnishes  the 
first  and  only  occasion  on  which  any  Convention  of  New  Jersey 
has  had  the  opportunity  of  exercising  its  solemn  duty  and  clear 
right,  under  the  Canon  for  the  trial  of  Bishops,  to  investigate,  in 
the  first  instance,  accusations  against  the  Bishop  ; 

"  And  whereas,  This  Convention,  while  it  reaffirms  the  entire 
confidence  in  the  purity  and  integrity  of  the  Bishop,  which  it  has 
heretofore  declared,  is  conscious  of  the  grievous  wrong  and  ill  con- 
sequences of  keeping  such  charges  hanging  over  him  and  the  Dio- 
cese: therefore, 

"Resolved,  That  a  Committee  of  seven  lay  members  of  this 
Convention  be  appointed,  by  ballot,  on  open  nomination,  to  make 
a  full  investigation  of  all  the  charges  contained  in  the  aforesaid 
paper,  and  that  it  report  to  an  adjourned  meeting  of  this  Conven- 
tion." 

On  the  14th  of  July  following,  this  Committee  brought  in  their 
Report,  from  which  it  is  manifest  that  none  of  the  principal  wit- 
nesses had  appeared  against  the  Bishop,  and  that  a  large  amount 
of  testimony  was  taken  in  his  favour.  The  Convention  adopted  the 
Report,  and  thereupon, 

"  Resolved,  That  the  result  of  the  investigation,  and  the  evidence 
now  laid  before  the  Convention,  renew  and  strengthen  the  confi- 
dence heretofore  expressed,  in  the  integrity  of  the  Bishop  of  this 
Diocese ;  and,  in  our  opinion,  fully  exculpate  him  from  any  charge 
of  crime  or  immorality  made  against  him.'' 

Then  follows  the  Resolution  appointing  another  Committee  to  lay 
their  investigation  before  this  Court,  and  to  urge  us  to  consider 
whether  it  will  be  wise,  or  just,  or  for  the  peace  of  God's  Church,, 
to  proceed  further  on  the  charges  laid  before  us. 

Before  I  proceed  to  examine  this  document,  it  is  proper  to  ob- 
serve that  the  first  Presentment,  on  which  the  Convention  predicate 
their  action,  was  afterwards,  in  my  opinion,  virtually  merged  in 
a  second,  on  account  of  the  late  Presiding  Bishop's  having  post- 
poned the  day  of  trial,  from  the  2-4th  of  June  to  the  7th  of  October. 
This  second  Presentment,  however,  contained  the  same  charges-  as 
the  first,  and  also  some  additional  ones,  which  nev;  charges  the 
Committee  of  New  Jersey  pledge  themselves  to  have  examined  in 
the  same  manner.  On  the  strength  of  their  past  investigation 
therefore,  before  seven  laymen,  they  claim  to  have  sufficiently  tried 
the  charges  contained  in  the  first  Presentment ;  and,  on  the  pledge 
to  investigate  the  new  charges,  they  claim  that  the  Court  must  ad- 


(    82    ) 

journ  until  the  Convention  shall  have  first  decided  whether  they 
will  present  their  Bishop  or  acquit  him. 

Thus,  then,  we  have  before  us  the  acknowledgment  of  the  Con- 
vention, that  the  three  Bishops  had  actually  proceeded  to  present 
the  Bishop  of  New  Jerse}^,  previous,  as  they  say,  to  their  having 
had  "  the  oj)-portunity  "  of  investigating  the  charges  brought  against 
him.  On  the  face  of  those  charges,  however,  there  appears  to  be  a 
plain  contradiction  to  this  proposition.  For  they  consist  chiefly  of 
matters  transacted  within  the  Diocese,  and  it  seems  quite  impos- 
sible that  the  facts  could  have  reached  the  ears  of  three  Bishops 
in  Virginia,  Ohio,  and  Maine,  and  yet  be  unknown  entirely  to  the 
members  of  that  Convention.  I  presume,  therefore,  that  they  must 
mean  to  limit  the  proposition,  by  the  condition  already  mentioned, 
where  the  Committee  admit  that  so  far  back  as  1849,  the  Conven- 
tion refused  to  make  inquiry  into  the  truth  of  various  reports,  which 
had  appeared  anonymously  in  a  public  print,  but  that  "  those  who 
opposed  the  Resolution,  distinctly  avowed  that  they  ivould  urge  the  Con- 
vention  to  act  lohenever  any  responsible  persons  should  affix  their 
'names  to  charges  involving  criminality  J'  Here,  therefore,  the  fol- 
lowing questions  may  arise,  viz.,  whether  the  opportunity  was  not 
always  as  open  to  one  party  as  to  the  other  ?  Whether  scandalous 
allegations,  published  in  a  newspaper  three  years  before,  were  not 
sufficient  notice  to  put  the  Convention  on  inquiry  ?  And  whether 
the  Presentment  actually  made  by  three  Bishops  can  possibly  be 
nullified,  merely  because  the  Convention,  though  they  had  full 
knowledge  of  these  scandalous  publications  brought  home  to  them 
in  a  resolution  offered  by  one  of  their  own  members  in  1849,  (to  say 
nothing  of  what  their  own  ears  might  have  heard  firom  other  quar- 
ters,) did  not  choose  to  give  them  any  attention,  until  the  three 
Bishops  had  completed  their  action  ? 

I  am  clearly  of  opinion,  however,  that  under  the  Canon  of  the 
Church,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  such  inquiries.  The  Court 
cannot  go  behind  the  Presentment,  in  order  to  determine  which  of 
the  two  parties,  the  Diocese  or  the  three  Bishops,  had  the  first 
knowledge  of  the  facts.  Such  an  investigation  would  demand  a 
distinct  trial  of  itself,  and  when  we  should  have  gone  through  the 
inquiry,  it  would  amount  to  nothing.  The  Canon  gives  both  par- 
ties an  equal  right  to  present.  Suppose  the  Convention  had  pre- 
sented, would  any  one  contend  that  this  should  not  be  effectual 
until  all  the  Bishops  in  the  Church  had  obtained  the  same  amount 
of  information,  so  that  any  three  among  them  should  have  the  same 


(    83    ) 

opportunity  as  the  Diocese  ?  If  this  claim  would  be  absurd,  much 
more  is  the  other  claim  inadmissible,  when  it  is  plain,  from  the 
statement  of  the  Committee  themselves,  that  they  had  positive 
knowledge  of  these  scandalous  charges  so  long  before. 

The  three  Bishop^,  therefore,  were  the  first  to  present,  confessedly. 
Therefore  they  gained  the  priority  of  jurisdiction  over  this  prelimi- 
nary act.  And  therefore  the  Diocese  had  no  power  left  under  the 
Canon  by  which,  according  to  the  settled  legal  principle,  they  could 
oust  the  Bishops  of  their  jurisdiction.  By  what  right,  then,  did 
they  undertake  to  ap[)oint  a  Committee  to  investigate,  when,  by  the 
express  directions  of  the  Canon,  the  investigation  after  a  present- 
ment was  made,  must  be  conducted  by  the  Court  of  Bishops  (• 
Where  does  the  Canon  give  them  authority  to  inquire  whether 
three  Bishops  of  the  Church,  in  making  such  presentment,  had 
done  their  duty  ?  And  above  all,  by  what  rule  of  ecclesiastical  or 
legal  propriety,  do  they  undertake  to  deprive  those  Bishops  of  their 
plain  canonical  right,  by  insisting  that  the  Diocese  must  exercise 
their  authority  first,  and  that,  if  they  choose  to  pronounce  an  ac- 
quittal, the  Presentment  of  the  Bishops  shall  be  accounted  null  and 
void,  and  the  discipline  laid  down  by  the  authority  of  the  General 
Convention  shall  become  impossible  ? 

It  has  been  said,  however,  that  even  if  the  Bishops  gained  a  pri- 
ority by  the  first  Presentment,  they  lost  it  by  the  second,  because 
the  action  of  the  Diocese  came  in  between.  But  this  cannot  be  pre- 
tended on  any  ground  of  legal  principle,  for  the  first  Presentment 
had  never  been  formally  withdrawn.  And  although  I  grant  that  it 
was  virtually  merged  by  the  fact  of  making  a  second  Presentment 
containing  the  same  charges,  yet  there  was  no  interval  in  which  the 
three  Bishops  could  be  said  to  have  relinquished  their  jurisdiction, 
because  the  first  Presentment  remained  in  full  force  until  the  second 
absorbed  it,  and  therefore  their  jurisdiction  was  continuous,  and 
without  interruption.  But  in  my  oj^inion,  this  point,  under  the 
present  state  of  the  facts,  is  of  no  importance.  For  even  if  the  three 
Bishops  had  made  no  Presentment  until  after  the  Diocese  had  com- 
pleted their  action,  there  was  nothing  in  that  action  then,  and  there 
is  nothing  in  it  now,  that  could  hinder  the  exercise  of  the  present- 
ing power.  Under  the  plain  provisions  of  the  Canon,  the  Diocese 
have  a  right  to  present,  but  they  have  no  power  whatever  to  pre- 
vent three  Bishops  from  presenting,  unless  by  first  finding  a  Present- 
ment themselves.  Their  undertaking  to  try  the  case,  and  pronounce 
a  sentence  of  acquittal  when  an  actual  Presentment  had  been  made, 


(    84     ) 

and  was  then  pending,  was  of  no  canonical  force  whatever,  but  was 
rather  an  interference  with  the  authority  which  the  Church  has  or- 
dained, and  which  I  consider  it  the  solemn  duty  of  this  Court  to 
execute. 

No  principles  in  the  law  of  the  land  are  better  settled  than  these, 
viz.,  that  the  refusal  of  one  Grand  Jury  to  find  an  indictment,  in  no 
wise  prevents  another  Grand  Jury  from  giving  it  their  sanction ; 
and  that  nothing  really  terminates  a  criminal  cause  except  it  be  a 
regular  verdict  or  sentence  by  a  Court  of  lawful  jurisdiction.  The 
same  maxims  govern  every  ecclesiastical  tribunal,  because  they  are 
founded  upon  the  immutable  rules  of  justice.  Hence  the  Conven- 
tion of  New  Jersey  have  neither  concluded  the  three  Bishops,  nor 
this  Court,  nor  even  themselves,  by  their  assumption  of  authority. 
They  have  only  shown  a  singular  degree  of  boldness  and  of  talent, 
in  a  vain  attempt  to  nullify  the  Canon  of  the  Church,  and  to  cut 
loose  the  wholesome  bands  of  discipline,  under  a  delusive  and  vague 
notion  of  the  independent  rights  of  their  Diocese.  And  while  I 
cannot  but  admire  their  devotion  to  their  Bishop,  and  cannot  but 
feel  that  it  goes  far,  of  itself,  in  proof  that  he  must  be  possessed  of 
high  qualities  and  rare  attraction,  to  have  at  his  command  a  body 
of  such  fervent  adherents,  yet  I  dare  not,  in  the  performance  of  my 
judicial  office  here,  shrink  from  a  decided  disapproval  of  the  course 
which  the  Diocese  has  taken,  and  of  the  false  principle  on  which  it 
rests  for  justification. 

For  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  the  rights  of  a  Diocese  ? 
Is  it  the  right  of  a  Diocese  to  nullify,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  plain 
provisions  of  the  Canon,  enacted  by  the  representatives  of  the  whole 
Church  and  the  Bishops  in  General  Convention  ?  Is  it  the  right  of 
a  Diocese  to  erect  a  tribunal  of  seven  laymen  to  try,  or  rather  to 
exculpate  their  Bishop,  for  the  purpose  of  stopping  the  regular 
course  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  ?  I  say  rather  to  exculpate,  because 
the  Eeport  of  the  Committee  shows  that  the  principal  witnesses  for 
the  charges  contained  in  the  Presentment  refused  to  attend,  under 
the  just  conviction  that  the  tribunal  was  uncanonical.  Is  it  the 
right  of  a  Diocese  to  call  that  a  trial,  where  the  testimony  on  one 
side  could  not  be  heard,  and  where  the  testimony  on  the  other  was 
given  without  cross-examination  ?  Is  it  the  right  of  a  Diocese  to 
come  before  this  Court,  the  only  tribunal  in  the  Church  which  has 
the  power  to  try  a  Bishop,  and  tell  us  that  "  enough  has  been  done  so 
far  as  concerns  the  charges  to  be  examined,  to  meet  every  claim  of  LAW  or 
of  truth  ;  and  that  for  us  to  proceed  with  a  trial  would  be  unjust  to 


(    85    ) 

tiie  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  iry'urious  to  the  Church  at  large,  and  degra- 
ding to  the  Convention  ?"  And  is  it  the  right  of  a  Diocese,  with  re- 
spect to  the  new  charges  which  they  do  not  pretend  to  have  exam- 
ined, "  to  ask  and  claim  that  loe  forbear  to  enter  on  this  trial  until  the 
Convention,  noiu  summoned  to  meet,  shall  have  had  the  opportunity  to 
do  its  duty,  in  the  full  investigation  of  the  latest  charges,  as  well  as  of  the 
first,"  thereby  intending,  I  presume,  that  seven  laymen  shall  be 
appointed  again,  to  supersede  us  in  the  performance  of  our  official 
duty  ? 

If  these  be  the  Eights  of  Dioceses,  I  should  be  glad  to  know  when 
they  were  conferred,  or  by  what  branch  of  the  Church  of  Christ  they 
were  ever  claimed  or  exercised,  before  they  were  assumed  by  the 
Convention  of  New  Jersey. 

With  respect  to  the  other  phrase,  an  independent  diocese,  a 
definition  is  equally  desirable.  According  to  my  judgment,  it  is  a 
phrase  without  any  meaning,  unless  it  be  a  very  bad  one.  A  diocese 
cannot  be  independent  in  its  legislation,  because  its  laws  must  al- 
ways be  subordinate  to  the  General  Convention  of  the  whole  Church, 
of  which  it  is  but  one  member.  If  its  Bishop  be  infirm,  and  it  be 
required  to  give  him  an  Assistant,  it  cannot  be  independent,  because 
it  must  have  the  consent  of  the  whole  Church  for  the  consecration 
of  the  elected  person.  If  its  Bishop  be  dead,  it  cannot  be  independ- 
ent, because,  without  the  same  consent,  it  cannot  have  a  successor. 
And  if  its  Bishop  be  the  subject  of  evil  report,  it  cannot  be  independ- 
ent, because  the  other  Bishops  are  the  only  tribunal  in  the  Church 
who  are  authorized  to  tr}',  and  either  acquit  or  condemn  him.  The 
truth  is,  that  this  phrase  can  never  be  reconciled  with  genuine 
Catholicity.  It  belongs  of  right  to  the  Puritan  school,  and  its  in- 
fluence all  tends  in  a  schismatic  direction. 

It  is  my  opinion,  therefore,  that  the  claim  of  the  Diocese  of  New 
Jersey  to  arrest  the  course  of  justice  in  the  case  of  this  Presentment, 
is  wholly  unsupported,  and  that  the  trial  must  go  on  to  a  regular 
and  canonical  termination.  I  believe  that  the  attempt  to  stop  our 
proceedings,  if  it  succeeds,  will  produce  no  other  result  than  a  tran- 
sient sense  of  victory  on  the  part  of  the  Diocese,  which  will  be  fol- 
lowed by  a  serious  time  of  trouble  and  mortification.  Even  on  the 
score  of  expediency,  I  should  greatly  fear  the  result,  for  this  is  not 
the  age,  nor  is  this  the  community,  in  which  the  general  mind  will 
be  satisfied  with  a  course  so  liable  to  be  regarded  as  an  evasion  of 
justice.  I  am  quite  willing  to  trust  the  strong  convictions  of  the 
Convention  of  New  Jersey,  that  their  Bishop  would  come  out  of  the 


(    86     ) 

ordeal  with  credit  and  with  honour,  if  the  trial  proceeds ;  and  for 
this  reason,  likewise,  I  must  express  my  surprise,  that  they  should 
prefer  the  imperfect  investigation  of  seven  laymen,  before  the  sol- 
emn verdict  of  the  regular  and  only  lawful  tribunal,  supposing, 
as  I  am  bound  to  do,  that  they  believe  their  own  solemn  professions. 
But,  whatever  the  end  might  be,  much  as  I  deplore  the  necessity 
which  has  brought  us  together,  and  heartily  as  I  should  rejoice  to 
congratulate  our  accused  Brother  on  a  safe  and  full  deliverance,  I 
am  thoroughly  persuaded  that  the  Church  of  Christ  can  never  lose, 
but  gain,  by  the  faithful  administration  of  discipline,  and  that  our 
only  safe  course  on  this  and  every  other  occasion,  is  to  do  our 
duty  without  fear,  favour  or  affection,  and  commit  the  result  to 
God. 

For  I  cannot,  on  my  own  part,  regard  the  action  of  the  Court  in 
any  other  light  than  that  of  an  imperative  obligation.  The  Canon 
expressly  declares  that,  upon  a  Presentment  being  made,  "  the  course 
of  proceeding  shall  he  as  follows :"  and  then  points  out  the  course 
which  the  Bishops,  when  assembled,  must  pursue.  Much  has  been 
said,  in  the  argument,  of  our  legal  discretion.  But  we  have  no  right 
to  depart  from  the  Canon  of  the  Church  on  any  imaginary  ground  of 
expediency.  Doubtless  there  is  such  a  thing  as  legal  discretion.  But 
this  is  a  discretion  used  according  to  law,  and  not  a  discretion  to 
trample  on  the  law,  at  our  will  and  pleasure.  Here  is  a  regular, 
canonical  Presentment,  read  by  the  Presenters,  and  recorded  on  our 
minutes.  Here  is  the  accused  Bishop,  prepared  for  the  trial,  on  the 
very  spot  selected  by  himself,  for  the  greater  convenience  of  his 
witnesses.  Here  is  the  Court  of  Bishops,  brought  together  from 
Maine  to  Florida,  for  the  very  purpose  of  hearing  and  deciding  this 
single  case  ?  What  legal  discretion  have  we  to  pin  our  faith  upon  the 
opinion  of  seven  laymen,  and  virtually  devolve  our  judicial  functions 
upon  a  self-constituted  body,  who  have  no  right  or  power  to  try  the 
cause  at  all  ?  What  legal  discretion  have  we  to  treat  this  Presentment 
as  a  nullity,  and  deny  justice  to  the  three  Bishops  who  demand  it 
canonically  at  our  hands?  And  what  aspect  shall  we  exhibit  before 
the  Church  and  the  world,  if  we  shrink  from  the  fulfilment  of  our 
especial  functions,  and  leave  the  controversy  which  we  alone  have 
authority  to  settle,  in  a  worse  state  of  strife  and  confusion  than  it 
was  in  before  ? 

It  is  not  to  a  course  like  this,  that  the  term  legal  discretion  is  ap- 
plicable. It  is  not  for  a  course  like  this,  that  the  Apostles  instituted 
the  work  of  discipline,  and  committed  it  to  the  hands  of  the  Bishops 


(    87    ) 

who  succeeded  them.  I  know  that  it  is  an  ungracious  work.  I  feel 
that  it  is  a  most  painful  one.  And  yet  I  sec  no  alternative.  The 
trial,  in  mj  opinion,  must  proceed. 

Bishop  of  Vermont. 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  KENTUCKY. 

Believing  this  Court  to  be  duly  constituted  for  the  trial  of  the 
case  before  it,  and  the  presentment  substantially  regular ;  and  that 
the  action  of  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  presents 
no  impediment  in  the  way  of  its  canonical  action,  I  am  of  opinion 
that  the  Resolutions  before  us  ought  not  to  pass. 

B.  B.  Smith. 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  WISCONSIN  AND  IOWA. 

A  RESPECTABLE  body  of  men,  ranking  high  in  the  community, 
and  devotedly  attached  to  the  Church,  request  us  now  to  leave  this 
subject  to  their  examination,  under  the  solemn  pledge  of  being  im- 
partial. They  claim,  and  they  unquestionably  possess,  co-ordinate 
powers,  at  least,  with  any  three  Bishops.  Moreover,  it  has  been 
proved,  that  their  inquiries  relative  to  the  conduct  of  Bishop  Doane 
began  prior  to  the  date  of  the  Presentment  now  before  us.  The 
case,  I  presume,  is  a  novel  one,  and  so  doubtless  is  the  Canon  under 
which  we  are  assembled.  If  no  precedent  can  be  found,  we  must 
exercise,  each  one  for  himself,  the  faculties  with  which  we  are 
endowed.  "Will  not  the  Convention,  in  this  case,  do  justice  ?  Have 
they  not  a  deeper  interest  in  the  inquiry  than  any  other  portion  of 
the  Church  ?  Can  it  be  imagined,  for  a  moment,  that  they  would 
be  willing  to  retain  as  their  spiritual  Ilead  an  unrighteous  man? 
Their  standing,  their  honour,  to  say  nothing  of  the  eternal  interests 
of  themselves  and  their  children,  are  at  stake.  They,  above  all 
others,  if  true  to  their  own  characters,  their  welfare,  and  the  Gospel 
they  profess  to  love,  will  be  most  anxious  to  be  relieved  from  the 
oversight  of  an  ungodly  Bishop.  Let  them  then,  before  God,  and" 
in  the  first  place  at  least,  after  solemn  and  minute  inquiry,  pro- 


(    88    ) 

nounce  their  Bishop  an  innocent  man ;  or  be  prepared,  as  good  men 
and  true,  to  assist  the  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Ohio  and  Maine,  in  pre- 
senting him  for  triah     I  vote  for  the  Resolutions, 

Jackson  Kempee. 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  MICHIGAN. 

I  "WAS  the  original  mover  of  the  Resolutions  now  before  this  Court. 
I  withdrew  them,  that  I  might  have  an  opportunity  to  state  what 
agency  I  had  in  the  postponement  of  the  trial.  This  was  simply 
to  present  the  letter  addressed  to  me  by  the  counsel  of  Bishop 
Doane,  to  the  Presiding  Bishop.  The  whole  matter  was  left  to  his 
judgment.  In  the  application  made  by  the  counsel,  there  was  a 
distinct  and  positive  declaration  made,  that  whatever  doubts  might 
exist  as  to  the  power  of  the  Presiding  Bishop,  no  advantage  would 
be  taken  by  him  or  Bishop  Doane.  The  latter  took  no  part  in  the 
application.  After  the  explanation  thus  given,  I  should  have  again 
offered  the  Resolution,  had  it  been  necessary,  as  I  consider  their 
adoption  by  this  Court,  to  be  essential  to  the  peace  of  the  Church, 
and  in  entire  accordance  with  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Canon. 
With  these  remarks,  I  proceed  to  state  the  reasons  for  my  opinion. 

In  the  construction  of  the  Canon,  "  Of  the  trial  of  Bishops,"  I 
agree  in  the  opinion  of  the  three  Presenting  Bishops,  expressed  in 
their  letter  to  Bishop  Doane,  "  that  action  should  first  take  place  iu 
the  Diocesan  Convention."  And  again,  "it  was  only  when  a  Dio- 
cesan Convention  refused  to  institute  inquiry,  or  neglected  to  do  it 
for  too  long  a  period,  or  performed  the  duty  unfaithfully,"  that  the 
Bishops  were  expected  to  interfere.  This  is  the  true  intent  and 
meaning  of  the  Canon,  and  had  it  been  adhered  to,  many  of  the  dif- 
ficulties which  now  surround  our  action  would  have  been  avoided. 
There  was  no  ground  or  reason  for  this  Presentment,  for  the  Con- 
vention of  New  Jersey  had  not  neglected  inquiry,  much  less  refused 
to  interfere.  On  the  contrary,  that  Diocese  had,  in  1849,  and  since, 
pledged  itself  to  institute  and  prosecute  inquiries  into  the  truth  of 
any  charges  which  should  be  brought  forward  by  any  responsible 
persons  against  its  Bishop.  It  had  redeemed  its  pledge,  and  in  a 
manner  which  satisfies  me,  and  ought  to  satisfy  every  one,  that  it 
was  not  unfaithful  to  its  promise. 


(    89    ) 

In  the  true  construction  of  this  Canon,  the  first  action  in  regard 
to  the  Presentment  was  to  proceed  from  the  Diocese,  not  from  any 
three  Bishops  of  the  Church,  Their  powers  did  not  come  into 
exercise  until  after  some  clear  neglect  of  duty  on  the  part  of  a 
Diocesan  Convention.  Even  if  this  were  not  so,  the  utmost  that 
could  be  said  on  the  other  side  was,  that  the  powers  of  the  Diocese, 
and  of  the  three  Bishops  were  concurrent.  In  such  a  case,  the 
body  which  first  entertained  jurisdiction  over  the  subject,  would 
be  entitled  to  retain  it,  and  finally  to  adjudicate  upon  it.  The 
first  Presentment  had  been  voluntarily  withdrawn,  or  withheld, 
or  abandoned  by  the  Presenters,  without  any  agency  on  Bishop 
Doane's  part,  and  another  and  enlarged  Presentment  had  been 
brought  forward.  This  was  done,  after  a  ivritten  statement  from 
the  counsel  of  Bishop  Doane,  addressed  to  the  counsel  of  the  com- 
plainants, that  no  advantage  would  be  taken,  by  the  former,  of 
the  adjournment  which  had  been  granted  by  Bishop  Chase,  This 
second  Presentment  was  posterior  in  date  to  the  whole  action 
of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey.  This,  as  I  have  observed,  com- 
menced in  1849,  and  was  fully  consummated  in  1852,  and  of  course 
the  three  Bishops  could  not  interfere  with  that  action,  or  deprive  it 
of  its  legitimate  effect.  The  Diocese  had  investigated  and  dismissed 
the  charges  embraced  by  the  Presentment  now  before  the  Court, 
except  as  respects  the  new  matter  introduced  into  it ;  and  had  also 
distinctly  pledged  itself  to  investigate,  and  do  whatever  was  right, 
with  regard  to  any  new  matters  which  might  be  alleged  against  its 
Bishop,  I  am  content,  therefore,  to  leave  these  matters  with  the 
Diocese,  and  consider  its  action  on  the  charges  which  it  had  exam- 
ined, as  final  and  conclusive. 

It  could  not  have  been  the  intention  of  iha  Church  in  passing 
the  Canon,  to  place  a  Diocese  in  direct  conflict  with  three  Bishops 
of  the  Church,  (which  would  be  necessarily  the  case  were  this 
Court  to  act  upon  the  Presentment  now  before  it,  after  the 
prior  action  of  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey,)  nor  to  put  the 
General  Church  in  opposition  to  any  particular  independent 
Diocese. 

This  would  be  the  case,  if  this  Court  entertain  the  Presentment 
before  it.  It  would  lead  to  endless  difficulties,  and  eventually 
separate  the  Dioceses,  now  united  for  the  better  promotion  of  the 
religion  of  our  blessed  Lord.  No  Diocese  could  or  would  submit 
to  such  an  interference,  as  its  independence  would  be  lost,  and  its 
whole  action  placed  under  the  supervision  of  foreign  Bishops,  and 


(    90    ) 

a  power  would  be  raised  up  in  the  Church,  far  worse  than  the  power 
of  Rome. 

I  trust,  therefore,  that  the  decision  of  this  Court  will  save  us 
from  such  consequences,  and  establish  on  a  firm  basis  the  eiitire 
independence  of  Dioceses,  only  limited,  by  express  and  well-defined 
concessions  for  the  common  good. 

I  therefore  vote  for  the  Resolutions. 

Saml.  a.  McCoskry. 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  WESTERN  NEW  YORK. 

Having  presented  my  views  of  the  case  at  length,  orally,  before 
the  Court,  and  not  having  time  to  write  them  out  in  full,  I  put  on 
record  the  facts  and  papers  before  me,  and  the  conclvsions  to  which 
the  consideration  of  them  has  brought  my  mind. 

THE  FACTS  AND  PAPERS. 

On  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  April,  1852,  the  following  notice 
was  received  at  my  house  in  Geneva : 

"  To  the  Rt.  Bev.  W.  H.  Be  Lancey,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  P.  Epis. 
Church  in  Western  New  York. 

"Very  Dr.  Brother, 

"  I  hereby,  according  to  Canon,  give  you  notice  of  the  presentation  for  trial 
of  the  Rt.  Rev.  G.  W.  Doane,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Bp.  of  the  P.  Ep.  Ch.  in  New 
Jersey,  a  copy  of  which  accompanies  this. 

"  And  I  hereby  certify  you  of  the  appointment  of  the  24th  day  of  June,  1852, 
as  the  time,  and  Camden,  New  Jersey,  as  the  place,  for  the  assembling  of  the 
Bishops  for  the  trial  of  the  accused. 

"  Ph.  Chase, 

"  Pres'g  Bp. 
"  Jubilee  College,  April  20,  1852." 

It  was  accompanied  by  a  Presentment,  printed,  signed  by  WilHam 
^  Meade,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Epis.  Church  in  Yirginia  ;  Charles 
P.  M'llvaine,  Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Epis.  Church  in  Ohio ;  George 
Burgess,  Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Epis.  Church  in  Maine ;  and  dated  in 
the  City  of  New  York,  the  thirtieth  day  of  March,  A.  D.  1852,  pre- 
senting George  Washington  Doane  as  being  chargeable  with  crune 
and  immorality  under  twenty-seven  specifications. 


(    91    ) 

On  the  25tli  of  May,  1852,  I  received  at  Geneva,  the  following 
notice  from  the  late  Presiding  Bishop,  Philander  Chase,  of  Illinois  : 

"  JUBILEK  COLLEOK,  Miiy  llth,  1852. 

"  By  request  of  a  number  of  Bishops  of  the  P.  E.  Ch.  in  the  U.  States,  and 
also  of  the  Counsel  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  G.  W.  Doane,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  I  hereby 
postpone  the  trial  of  the  said  Bishop  from  the  2-ithof  June,  until  the  7th  day  of 
October,  1852  ;  the  ^;/act'  not  being  changed. 

(Signed)  "  Philander  Chase, 

"  Senr.  and  Presiding  Bp.  of  the  House  of  Bishops. 
"  Rt.  Rev.  W.  H.  De  Lancey,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 
"  Bishop  of  Western  Xew  York." 

I  did  not  request  the  postponement  of  the  trial ;  but,  having  been 
appointed,  with  the  Bishop  of  Michigan,  by  a  meeting  of  Bishops 
held  in  New  York,  on  the  29th  of  April,  1852,  a  delegate  to  attend 
the  closing  services  of  the  third  Jubilee  of  the  Society  for  the 
Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  I  left  New  York  for 
England  on  the  29th  of  May,  1852,  and  returned  to  New  York  on 
the  2d  of  October,  1852.  On  the  4th  of  October  I  saw  the  follow- 
ing notice,  which  had  been  received  at  my  house  at  Geneva  on  the 
1st  of  September,  1852  : 

"  Eobin's  Nest,  Peoria  Co.,  III. 

"  Jubilee  College,  Aug.  2oth,  1852. 
"  Right  Rev.  W.  H.  De  Lancey, 

"  Bishop  of  Western  Neto  York. 
"I  have  received  this  day  a  new  Presentment  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  Geo.  W. 
Doane,  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  containing  additional  charges,  alleging  as  the 
reason  of  such  Presentment,  that  it  had  been  questioned  by  many  whether  the 
postponement  of  the  time  of  trial  on  a  former  Presentment  were  justified  by  the 
Canon.  It  therefore  (I  ha-s-ing  received  such  Presentment)  becomes  Ta.y  duty, 
under  the  Canon  for  the  trial  of  a  Bishop,  to  give  you  notice  of  the  same,  and 
appoint  the  time  and  place  of  trial. 

"  I  therefore  appoint  the  seventh  day  of  October  next,  ten  o'clock  A.  M.,  the 
place  Camden,  New  Jersey,  in  the  Hall  of  the  Library  Association,  corner  of 
Market  and  24th  Street,  then  and  there  to  traverse  the  several  specifications 
made  in  the  said  new  Presentment,  a  copy  of  which  is  herewith  transmitted. 

"  Philander  Chase, 

"Presg.  Bp." 

It  was  accompanied  by  a  Presentment,  printed,  signed  by 
William  Meade,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Epis.  Ch,  in  Virginia, 
Charles  Pettit  Mcllvaine,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Epis.  Ch.  in 
Ohio,  George  Burgess,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Epis.   Ch.  in 


(    92    ) 

Maine,  dated  July  22,  1852,  presenting  George  Washington  Doane, 
as  guilty  of  crime  and  immorality,  under  tbirty-one  specifications. 

Neither  of  these  Presentments  had  on  it  any  certificate  of  the 
Presiding  Bishop,  that  it  was  a  copy  of  the  Presentment  delivered 
to  him. 

Under  these  papers  fourteen  Bishops  met,  with  the  Presenters, 
and  the  Bishop  presented,  at  Camden,  New  Jersey,  on  the  seventh 
day  of  October,  1852,  elected  a  President  and  Clerk,  and  adjourned 
to  Burlington,  New  Jersey,  at  the  request  of  the  Bishop  presented, 
and  in  opposition  to  the  declarations  and  exceptions  of  the  Bishops 
presenting. 

The  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  through  a  com- 
mittee, applied  to  be  heard  before  proceeding  to  trial.  The  Pre- 
senters opposed  their  being  heard.  The  Bishops  decided  that  they 
should  be  heard,  immediately  after  the  Presentment  shall  be  read. 

On  the  ninth  of  October  a  single  Presentment*  was  put  in  by  the 
Presenting  Bishops,  dated  July  22, 1852,  and  having  on  it  no  attest- 
ation of  the  late  Presiding  Bishop  that  it  was  the  original,  or  an 
attested  copy,  of  the  Presentment  delivered  to  the  late  Presiding 
Bishop,     It  was  read  by  the  Clerk. 

The  Committee  of  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  read  before 
the  Court,  on  Saturday,  the  9  th  of  October,  a  written  Paper  stating 
the  views  of  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey,  which  had  examined 
the  charges  and  specifications  of  the  first  Presentment,  and  found  in 
them  no  sufficient  ground  for  presentment,  pledging  the  Convention 
to  investigate  the  additional  charges  in  the  second  Presentment,  for 
which  purpose  the  Convention  was  to  meet  on  the  27th  of  this 
month  of  October ;  and  asking  the  Court  not  to  proceed.  It  was 
put  on  record  of  the  Court. 

The  Presenters  read  before  the  Court  on  Monday,  the  11th 
October,  a  written  Paper  in  answer  to  the  Paper  of  the  Convention 
of  New  Jersey,  urging  the  Court  to  proceed  to  trial,  of  which 
Paper  printed  copies  were  promised  to  the  Bishops.  It  was  put  on 
record  of  the  Court. 

The  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  thus  presented,  avowed  himself  ever 
ready  to  stand  a  just  and  fair  trial  before  a  canonically  constituted 
and  conducted  Court. 

With  these  facts  and  papers,  and  the  several  arguments  I  have 
heard  in  Court  before  me,  I  reach  the  following  conclusions  : 

*  This  was  the  seooiid  Presentment.  The  Presenters  subsequently  applied  to  tte 
Court  for  the  trial  of  the  Bishop  on  the  first  Presentment  also. 


(    93    ) 

AS   TO   THE   COURT, 

It  is  uncertain  whether  we  are  assembled  canonicallj,  as  a  special 
Court  to  try  the  first  Presentment,  or  as  a  special  Court  lo  try  the 
second  Presentment,  or  as  a  general  Court  to  try  both  Presentments, 
or  as  any  Court  at  all. 

AS  TO  THE   PRESENTMENT, 

It  is  uncertain  whether  we  have  canonically  before  us  the  first 
Presentment,  or  the  second  Presentment,  or  both  Presentments,  or 
any  Presentment  at  all. 

AS  TO  THE   PRESENTING  POWERS, 

It  is  uncertain  which  of  the  two  Presenting  Powers  recognised 
by  the  Canon — the  New  Jersey  Convention,  and  the  three  Bishops — 
first  moved  in  the  matter  of  the  Presentment,  and  thus  precluded 
the  other  Presenting  Power  from  acting  in  the  case ;  and  whether 
the  fact  that  one  Presenting  Power  did  move  in  the  case,  shuts  out 
the  other  Presenting  Power  from  touching  the  case ;  and  whether 
a  Presenting  Power  can  make  two  Presentments  of  the  same 
Bishop,  with  the  option  of  putting  in  one  or  other  of  them  as  it 
may  choose. 

AS  TO  THE   QUASHING  OF  THE  PRESENTMENT, 

It  is  uncertain  whether,  under  the  Canon,  the  postponement  of 
the  meeting  of  the  Court  by  the  Presiding  Bishop,  from  June  24  to 
October  7,  1852,  quashed  the  first  Presentment;  or  the  act  of  the 
Presenters,  in  withholding  it  and  putting  in  another  Presentment, 
quashed  it;  or  whether  it  could  be  quashed  without  the  action  of 
the  Court ;  or  whether  it  has  been,  or  could  be,  quashed  at  all. 

AS  TO  THE  PAPER  HANDED  IN  BY  THE  PRESENTERS, 

It  is  uncertain  whether  we  have  before  us  the  actual  Presentment 
made  by  the  Presenters,  inasmuch  as  the  original  Paper,  transmitted 
by  the  Presenters  to  the  Presiding  Bishop  as  the  first  Presentment, 
is  not  before  the  Court,  nor  any  certified  copy  thereof;  and  inas- 
much as  the  Paper  dated  July  22,  1852,  put  in  by  the  Presenters 
and  read  before  the  Court,  is  neither  the  original  Presentment  sent 
to  the  Presiding  Bishop,  nor  a  certified  copy  thereof. 


(    94    ) 

AS  TO   THE   POWER  TO   POSTPONE   THE   COURT  AND   TO   RECEIVE 
A  NEW   PRESENTMENT, 

It  is  uncertain  whether,  under  the  Canon,  the  Presiding  Bishop 
had  the  canonical  power  to  postpone  the  meeting  of  the  Court  from 
the  24th  June  to  the  7th  of  October ;  and  whether  he  had,  under 
the  Canon,  any  power  to  receive  and  act  upon  a  second  Present- 
ment of  the  same  Bishop,  by  the  same  Presenters,  before  the  first 
Presentment  was  canonically  disposed  of. 

AS  TO  THE   PRIMARY  RIGHT  OF  PRESENTMENT, 

It  is  uncertain  whether  the  power  of  Presentment  in  a  Conven- 
tion is  not  primary,  and  that  of  the  Bishops  secondary ;  so  that  if 
the  Convention  examines  as  a  Grand  Jury,  and  dismisses  charges, 
as  not  sufficient  ground  for  Presentment,  any  three  Bishops  can 
canonically  take  up  the  same  charges  and  ground  a  Present- 
ment upon  them ;  or  whether  the  Convention  of  a  Diocese  and  the 
Bishops  do  possess  a  co-ordinate  power  of  Presentment. 

These  uncertainties  in  the  case  would,  if  the  Court  proceed  to 
trial,  make  it  a  trial  before  a  Court  of  doubtful  jurisdiction,  on  a 
doubtful  Presentment,  with  contesting  Presenters — a  Diocesan  Con- 
vention at  issue  with  the  three  Bishops  as  to  the  rightful  exercise  of 
the  Presenting  Power — with  nq  authorities  or  precedents  of  Church 
Law  to  settle  the  questions,  and  under  a  Canon  for  trial,  admitted 
by  almost  all,  to  be  most  wretchedly  defective. 

A  trial,  under  such  circumstances,  on  whichever  side  its  decision 
might  be,  if  the  decision  should  touch  any  secular  interests  of  the 
parties,  would  be  liable  to  be  tested  by  a  civil  Court,  which  would, 
as  I  understand,  simply  ascertain  if  this  Court  had  or  had  not  con- 
formed to  its  powers  and  rights  as  conferred  upon  it  by  the  Canons, 
laws,  and  usages  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  would 
not  be  likely  to  confirm  the  decision  of  a  Court  of  doubtful  juris- 
diction. 

AS  TO  THE   CANON, 

It  is  a  law  of  a  few  years'  existence,  and  is  admitted  generally  to 
be  so  defective  in  its  provisions,  as  utterly  to  fail  of  ensuring  a  just 
and  righteous  decision.  It  was  so  regarded  and  declared,  in  my 
judicial  opinion,  at  the  only  trial  that  has  been  held  under  it.  Its 
more  obvious  defects  are  such  as  these : 


(    95    ) 

1.  It  allows  a  Bishop  wlio  has  been  in  controversy  and  dispute  with 
a  Bishop  on  trial,  to  sit  in  judgment  on  him,  as  in  this  case. 

2.  It  allows  an  Assistant  Bishop  to  sit  in  judgment  on  a  trial 
where  the  Bishop  to  whom  he  is  an  Assistant  is  one  of  the  Pre- 
senters, as  in  this  case. 

8.  It  gives  no  power  of  challenge  to  the  Presented  Bishop  against 
any  member  of  the  Court  and  Jury. 

4.  It  provides  for  no  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Court  to  any 
other  Church  tribunal. 

5.  It  compels  the  Presenting  Bishops,  who  are  the  jury  of  in- 
quest, to  appear  before  the  Court  in  a  body,  and  act  as  Prosecutors 
in  the  case. 

6.  It  has  no  provision  to  compel  witnesses  to  come  before  the 
Court  and  testify. 

In  the  interpretation  and  application  of  this  Canon,  there  is  no  law 
or  rule  requiring  the  Court  to  be  guided  by  the  analogy  of  Courts 
of  law  or  equity,  or  by  the  analogy  of  Courts  Martial,  or  by  the 
analogy  of  the  Civil  Law,  or  by  the  analogy  of  the  Common  Law,  or 
by  the  analogy  of  English  Ecclesiastical  Courts,  or  by  the  analogy  of 
Ecclesiastical  Proceedings  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Church,  and  de- 
termining by  which  of  these  analogies  the  Court  should  be  guided. 

The  defects  of  a  Canon,  or  the  difficulty  of  interpreting  and 
applying  it,  constitute  no  reason  for  wholly  refusing  to  try  a  case ; 
but  they  constitute  a  valid  reason,  in  ray  opinion,  for  not  hurrying 
to  trial  a  case  embarrassed  with  such  serious  difficulties  and  ques- 
tions as  are  seen  above  to  lie  across  the  path  of  this  Court. 

And  especially  is  there  reason  for  not  precipitating  this  trial,  or 
any  trial  of  a  Bishop,  in  the  solemn  fact  that  there  is  now  before  the 
Church  for  consideration,  to  be  acted  on  by  the  next  General  Con- 
vention, and  formally  referred  to  that  Convention  which  is  to  meet 
within  one  year  from  this  time,  A  new  Canon*  for  the  trial  of  a 
Bishop,  remedying  many  of  the  defects  of  the  existing  Canon, 
taking  from  the  Bishops  this  power  of  presenting  for  crime  or  im- 
morality, restricting  that  power  to  the  Diocesan  Convention,  and 
allowing  a  Bishop  to  make  a  Presentment  in  cases  only  of  heresy 
and  false  teaching. 

There  being,  under  the  existing  Canon,  ten  distinct  Presenting 
Bodies,  one  permanent,  viz.,  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New 
Jersey,  and  nine  voluntary  and  out  of  the  Diocese,  viz.,  any  three  of 
twenty-seven  Bishops,  and  these  Presenting  Bodies  being  accessible 

*  See  pages  55  and  88  of  Journal  of  General  Convention  of  1S50. 


(    96    ) 

to  all  who  have  charges  and  complaints  to  make  against  the  Bishop 
of  New  Jersey ;  and  the  adoption  of  the  Order  of  the  Court  now 
under  consideration,  not  having  the  effect  of  stopping  a  regular  and 
Canonical  Presentment  and  trial  of  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  but 
of  ensuring  a  regular  presentment,  if  necessary,  by  a  Canonical  Pre- 
senting Power,  and  of  securing,  as  far  as  so  defective  a  Canon  will 
allow,  a  trial,  if  a  trial  be  necessary,  full,  fair,  and  unembarrassed 
by  questions  such  as  now  arise,  affecting  the  validity  of  this  Court 
and  of  this  Presentment ;  and  ten  of  the  Bishops  being  absent  from  the 
Court,  as  it  now  exists,  I  give  my  opinion  in  favour  of  the  Order, 
and  vote  afiirmatively.  William  H.  De  Lajstcey, 

Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Western  New  York. 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  MARYLAND. 

In  view  of  inextricable  difficulties  in  the  position  of  the  Court, 
owing  to  informalities  and  irregularities  in  its  call  and  constitution ; 

Of  grave  doubts  concerning  the  existence  of  any  sufficient  Pre- 
sentment, and  the  possibility  of  determining  which  of  the  two  docu- 
ments in  possession  of  the  members  of  the  Court,  sent  to  them  as 
Presentments,  ought  to  be  regarded  as  such,  if  there  be  any ; 

Of  the  fact  that  the  matters  contained  in  the  Presentment  now  be- 
fore this  Court  had,  with  the  exception  of  the  few  additions  and  alter- 
ations, (by  which  this  Presentment  has  been  made  to  differ  from  the 
other,  with  which  it  is  otherwise  identical,)  been  already  investigated 
by  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  before  the  making 
of  the  said  Presentment ; 

Of  the  additional  fact  that  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New 
Jersey,  having  made  such  investigation,  has  declared  its  Bishop  to 
be,  in  its  opinion,  fully  exculpated  from  the  charges  preferred  in 
the  Presentment  now  before  the  Court,  and  has  averred  its  renewed 
and  strengthened  confidence  in  the  integrity  of  its  Bishop  ;  and,  fur- 
thermore, having  claimed  thus  to  have  fulfilled  the  duty  of  making 
a  full,  searching,  and  honest  inquiry  into  any  allegation  against 
its  Bishop,  when  brought  before  it  upon  definite  charges,  faith- 
fully and  in  the  fear  of  God,  has  presented  to  this  Court  a  represent- 
ation of  its  said  doings,  and  the  grounds  thereof,  urging  upon  the 
Court  the  consideration  of  the  question  whether  it  will  proceed 
further  upon  the  charges  laid  before  it ; 


(    97    ) 

And  of  the  additional  fact  that  a  Special  Convention  of  the  Dio- 
cese of  New  Jersey  has  been  called,  to  take  cognizance  of  alleged 
new  matters  in  the  Presentment  now  before  this  Court : 

In  the  belief  that  this  Court,  as  an  assembly  of  Bishops  in  the 
Church  of  God,  met  together,  by  virtue  of  their  office,  for  the 
discharge  of  the  duty  of  administering  discipline  in  its  large  and 
full  sense,  is  bound  to  recognise  and  respect  the  position,  claims, 
and  rights  of  a  Diocese  in  the  said  Church ;  and,  in  the  present 
instance,  cannot  refuse  to  hear  and  comply  with  the  request  of  such 
a  Diocese,  that  it  be  not  interfered  with  in  its  inchoate  exercise  of 
discipline  within  its  borders: 

The  undersigned  is  of  opinion  that  the  Orders  offered  by  the 
Bishop  of  Indiana  ought  to  be  passed. 

William  Rollinson  Whittingham, 

Bishop  of  Maryland. 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  DELAWARE. 

The  undersigned  dissents  from  the  judgment  of  the  Court,  dis- 
missing the  Presentment  before  it. 

The  main  reason  urged  upon  this  Court  for  such  dismissal,  and 
recognised  by  the  majority  of  its  members  as  valid  and  conclusive, 
is  the  action  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  in  relation  to  the  subject- 
matter  before  us.  In  my  entire  dissent  from  this  judgment,  I  am 
decided  by  the  following  considerations : 

We  are  assembled  as  a  Court  of  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  for  the  discharge  of  a  certain  duty — a  duty  of  the 
most  solemn  responsibility  and  grave  importance — the  trial  of  an 
accused  brother,  upon  certain  charges  of  a  serious  nature,  set  forth 
in  the  Presentment. 

This  duty  we  are  bound,  I  conceive,  to  enter  upon  and  faithfully 
perform,  unless  we  are  convinced  that  the  case  is  beyond  our  juris- 
diction, or  that  the  Presentment  is  so  defective  that  we  cannot 
proceed  under  it. 

It  is  true,  as  alleged,  that  the  Canon  (III.  of  1844)  under  which 
we  are  assembled,  does  not  imperatively  require  the  attendance  of 
every  Bishop  of  this  Church  on  the  present  occasion,  neither  does 

7 


(    98    ) 

it  impose  any  penalty  upon  those  who  may,  without  sufficient  rea- 
sons, absent  themselves.  But  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
persons  to  whom  the  Church  delegates  this  trust,  are  already  under 
the  still  higher  and  more  solemn  obligation  of  their  consecration 
vow,  wherein  they  pledged  themselves,  before  God  and  the  Church, 
"diligently  to  exercise  such  discipline  as,  by  the  authority  of  God's 
Word,  and  by  the  order  of  this  Church,  is  committed  to  them."  No 
penalty  or  injunction  could  make  the  obligation  more  imperative 
than  an  engagement  so  explicit  in  its  terms,  and  assumed  with  so 
much  solemnity. 

To  this  duty  we  are  bound  to  address  ourselves  with  all  good 
fidelity.  We  are  to  take  into  consideration  the  law  under  which 
we  are  convened,  with  the  purpose  to  ascertain  its  fair  interpreta- 
tion, and  carry  out  faithfully  its  provisions.  To  evade,  or  attempt 
to  evade  this  duty,  however  onerous,  unpleasant,  or  responsible, 
would  be  unbecoming  our  office,  and  discreditable  to  our  Church. 

Does  then  the  law,  fairly  interpreted,  require  us  to  proceed  to  the 
trial  of  this  case,  or  does  the  action  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey 
relieve  us  of  this  obligation  ?  The  meaning  of  this  Canon,  like  that 
of  any  other  law,  is  to  be  gathered  in  the  first  place  from  itself. 
The  language  of  a  law  is  the  first  and  most  obvious  index  of  its 
meaning,  and,  where  it  is  clear  and  explicit,  is  conclusive.  To  this 
are  to  be  added  the  history  of  the  law  in  question,  as  it  appears  on 
public  records,  and,  when  they  exist,  declaratory  laws  and  judicial 
construction. 

1.  The  language  of  the  law  is,  in  the  first  place,  our  informant  as 
to  the  meaning  of  the  legislative  body.  A  court  cannot  go  to  in- 
dividual members  of  that  legislature  to  know  with  what  intention 
they  severally  concurred  in  the  act.  The  impressions  of  a  member 
of  the  committee  of  either  House,  by  whom  the  Canon  was  framed 
or  reported,  are  no  more  a  proper  subject  of  inquiry,  than  the 
impressions  of  any  other  member  of  that  legislature.  The  only 
proper  rule  of  interpretation  in  this  case,  is  to  suppose  that  the 
General  Convention  meant  what  they  said.  They  could  express 
intelligibly  their  intentions,  and  we  must  presume  they  have  done 
so.  And  on  the  other  hand,  we  must  suppose  that  what  they  did 
not  say,  they  did  not  mean,  unless  necessary  to  carry  out  their  in- 
tentions. A  committee,  or  member  of  a  committee,  might  have 
had  one  view  in  reporting  a  Canon,  and  a  majority  of  the  legisla- 
ture might  have  enacted  it  with  an  altogether  difierent  view.  If 
the  General  Convention  of  1844,  who  passed  the  present  law,  in- 


(    99    ) 

tended  to  give  to  the  Diocese  a  priority  of  right  in  the  institution 
of  proceedings  against  their  Bishop,  and  further  intended  that  its 
decision  not  to  institute  such  proceedings  should  be  a  bar  tto  any 
presentment  by  three  Bishops;  or  if  they  meant  to  confine  the  right 
of  three  Bishops  to  present,  to  the  case  of  Bishops  without  Dio 
ceses,  or  of  Missionary  Bishops,  or  to  cases  when  the  charge  was 
heresy,  reserving  all  consideration  of  accusations  of  immorality  to 
the  Convention  of  the  Diocese,  they  could  have  said  any  or  all  of 
these  things.  They  were  entirely  competent  to  express  such  inten- 
tions, and  might  have  inserted  any  such  exceptions  or  limitations 
in  explicit  and  precise  terms.  It  would  be,  I  conceive,  a  most 
unprecedented  and  unwarrantable  assumption,  for  a  court  to  under- 
take to  amend  a  law  by  such  interpolations,  relying  upon  the  chance 
recollections  or  impressions  of  any  individual  who  was  concerned 
in  passing  or  framing  the  law  in  question.  Now  the  plain,  easy, 
obvious  interpretation  of  the  Canon,  gives  an  equal  and  co-ordinate 
right,  either  to  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  an  accused  Bishop, 
or  to  three  Bishops,  to  institute  proceedings  for  a  trial ;  the  only 
difference  being  that,  in  the  one  case,  there  are  assigned  certain 
precise  limitations ;  while,  in  the  other,  the  right  is  left  perfectly 
unlimited. 

Had  the  language  of  the  Canon  been  at  all  dubious  or  obscure, 
it  would  be  incumbent  on  the  Court  to  resort  to  the  other  appro- 
priate modes  for  the  ascertainment  of  its  true  sense,  viz.,  its  history, 
declaratory  laws,  or  judicial  construction.  But  while  it  does  not, 
to  my  mind,  at  all  lie  open  to  the  charge  of  obscurity,  the  other 
sources  of  legitimate  information,  so  far  as  they  are  accessible  to  us, 
are  altogether  confirmatory  of  its  obvious  interpretation. 

2.  Declaratory  laws  there  are  none ;  but  we  have  additional  con- 
firmation of  the  view  above  taken  of  its  meaning,  in  the  history  of 
our  legislation  on  this  subject,  and  in  judicial  construction. 

The  interpretation  which  takes  away,  in  the  circumstances  of  the 
present  case,  the  right  of  presentment  from  the  three  Bishops,  is 
pressed  upon  us  by  a  member  of  the  present  Court,  on  the  ground 
that,  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  who  reported  the  present  Canon 
to  the  Ilouse  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  in  18-i4,  he  was  entitled 
to  speak  with  more  than  ordinary  decision  as  to  its  meaning. 

But  that  part  of  the  Canon  upon  which  the  argument  for  dis- 
missing this  case  is  grounded,  did  not  originate  in  1844,  or  with 
that  committee.  It  was  enacted  in  1841,  and  the  provision  of  1841 
respecting  presentments  was  reinserted  in  the  Canon  of  1844,  with- 


(    100    ) 

out  variation,  so  far  as  the  concurrent  right  of  presentment  is  con- 
cerned. 

Neither  does  judicial  construction  furnish  any  more  tenable 
ground  for  the  argument  in  favour  of  dismissing  the  Presentment. 

The  Canon  has  been  once  before  acted  upon ;  and,  although  thus 
subjected  but  once  to  judicial  examination,  yet  as  it  is  to  be  hoped 
and  expected  that  trials  of  Bishops  will  not  be  of  very  frequent 
occurrence,  the  fact  that  the  Canon  has  been  already  brought  to 
the  searching  ordeal  of  such  an  examination,  ought  not  to  be  without 
weight. 

On  the  trial  of  the  Bishop  of  New  York  there  was,  as  in  the 
present  case,  a  presentment  by  three  Bishops,  on  charges  of  alleged 
immorality.  The  objections  urged  against  our  now  proceeding  ex- 
isted, if  not  to  the  same  extent,  yet  certainly  to  such  a  degree  that, 
if  valid,  we  might  suppose  that  the  Court  would  then  have  noticed 
them. 

The  point  before  us  was  not  raised  by  the  Counsel  of  the  accused 
Bishop,  and  there  was  therefore  no  decision  upon  it ;  but  the  fact 
that  the  Diocese  had  taken  no  steps  to  bring  their  Bishop  to  trial 
was  referred  to  in  argument,  and  in  the  opinions  of  members  of  the 
Court.  (See  Opinion  of  the  Bishop  of  Western  New  York,  page 
305  of  printed  Eeport  of  Trial  of  Bishop  Onderdonk.)  After  the 
adjournment  of  that  Court,  it  is  a  fact  notorious,  that  its  procedure 
and  sentence  were  assailed  in  various  journals  and  other  publica- 
tions, and  that,  among  the  objections  made  against  it,  was  the  allega- 
tion that  the  Diocese  of  the  accused  Bishop  was  the  proper  party  to 
institute  such  prosecution,  and  that  it  had  neither  taken  nor  been 
disposed  to  take  any  such  step.  In  the  General  Convention  of  1847, 
and  again  in  that  of  1850,  there  was  proposed  for  adoption,  a  canon 
for  the  trial  of  a  Bishop,  containing  the  very  limitation  which  is 
now  to  be  affixed,  by  the  sentence  of  this  Court,  to  Canon  III.  of 
1844.  The  proposed  canon  confined  the  presentment  by  brother 
Bishops  to  the  single  case  of  heresy.  The  introduction  of  such  a 
proposed  law  is  a  plain  concession  that  the  law  of  1844  contained 
no  such  limitation.  But  the  attention  of  the  Church  was  thus  par- 
ticularly called  to  the  question.  The  legislature  were  invoked  to 
determine  precisely  the  very  point  before  us,  and  to  say  that,  thence- 
forth, to  the  Diocesan  Convention  alone  should  be  confided  the  pros- 
ecution of  a  Bishop  upon  charges  of  immorality.  But  the  legisla- 
ture declined  to  take  any  such  action.  The  proposed  canon  was 
postponed  from  one  Convention  to  another.     The  Canon  of  1844 


(     101     ) 

"was  left  on  our  Statute  Book  unrepealed,  in  spite  of  all  its  alleged 
defects  and  imperfections.  It  is  still  the  law  of  the  Church,  and 
we,  as  a  judicial  tribunal,  are  bound  to  execute  it  in  good  faith. 
We  are  here,  not  in  a  legislative,  but  a  judicial  capacity.  We  are 
not  to  make  law,  but  to  administer  it.  And  the  law,  upon  whose 
construction  we  are  now  to  decide,  stands  before  us  settled,  so  far  as 
there  is  any  judicial  action  or  legislative  history  to  guide  us,  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  sense  that  is  now  attempted  to  be  put  upon  it. 

There  is  not,  therefore,  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  on  my  mind 
that  the  law,  as  it  stands,  gives  a  concurrent  right  of  presentment 
to  the  Diocese,  and  to  three  Bishops  of  this  Church.  It  is  equally 
certain  that  the  one  of  these  two  parties  first  exercising  that  right, 
excludes  the  other.  A  conflict  between  two  presenting  parties  is 
inadmissible.  When  one  consummates  action,  the  other  is  rendered 
powerless.  But  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  have  declined  to  exer- 
cise this  right.  They  have  declared  that  in  their  opinion  no  ground 
existed  for  a  presentment.  The  three  Bishops  have  acted  and  made 
a  presentment  in  due  form.  They  have  availed  themselves  of  the 
single  right,  accorded  by  the  Canon,  of  instituting  a  prosecution. 
To  contend  that  the  refusal  of  a  Diocese  to  present,  after  such  in- 
quiry as  has  been  made,  is  a  bar  to  the  procedure  of  the  three 
Bishops,  is  equivalent  to  taking  the  ground  that  not  only  may  the 
Diocese  present,  but  that,  not  presenting,  it  may  prohibit  Bishops 
of  the  Church  from  doing  so.  What  law,  or  clause,  or  word,  or 
syllable,  gives  to  a  Diocese  this  veto  upon  the  action  of  Bishops  ? 
Surely  for  such  an  authority  there  ought  to  be  some  plain  and  posi- 
tive enactment.  But  none  such  is  to  be  found.  Diocesan  rights, 
under  the  Constitution,  have  nothing  to  do  with  this  question,  for 
the  Constitution  itself  declares  (Article  YI.)  that  "The  mode  of 
trying  Bishops  shall  be  provided  by  the  General  Convention.  The 
Court  appointed  for  that  purpose  shall  bo  composed  of  Bishops 
only."  It  would  be  just  as  reasonable  to  claim  that  the  Diocese 
has  the  exclusive  right  of  trying,  as  of  presenting  its  Bishop,  and  the 
alleged  independent  rights  would  seem  to  be  as  much  violated  in 
the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

It  is  worthy  of  note,  that  while  the  right  of  presentment  by  a 
Diocese  is  limited  by  certain  conditions,  the  right  confided  to  three 
Bishops  is  unconditional  and  unlimited.  The  Church  evidently 
intended  to  intrust  her  Bishops  with  a  large  discretion  in  such  cases. 
Very  obvious  reasons  occur  why  there  should  be  checks  upon  the 
action  of  a  popular  body,  in  a  matter  of  so  much  delicacy  and 


(    102    ) 

importance,  which  are  not  necessary  in  the  case  of  the  individual 
action  of  those  who  are  clothed  with  the  high  and  solemn  responsi- 
bilities of  the  Episcopal  office.  The  object  of  the  Church  must  be 
supposed  to  be  the  just  administration  of  her  godly  discipline. 
The  presentment  of  a  Bishop  was  not  meant  to  be  so  easy  a  thing 
that  it  could  be  effected  lightly  and  without  due  consideration ; 
neither  has  it  been  purposely  made  hard  and  difficult,  so  as  to  ex- 
empt her  highest  officers  from  due  accountability.  The  one  course 
would  have  exposed  her  peace  to  be  causelessly  disturbed ;  the  other 
would  have  been  a  mere  mockery  of  justice.  To  permit  the  inno- 
cent to  be  vexatiously  harassed  on  light  grounds,  or  to  screen  the 
guilty,  would  have  been  alike  unbecoming  the  Church  of  Christ. 
"He  that  justifieth  the  wicked,  and  he  that  condemneth  the  just, 
even  they  both  are  abomination  to  the  Lord." 

We  are  bound  to  presume  the.  great  object  of  the  Church  in  her 
legislation  on  this  subject  to  have  been  substantial,  even-handed 
justice,  and  this  object  it  is. our  solemn  and  bounden  duty  to  effect, 
in  the  fear  of  God,  and  mindful  of  our  own  accountability  at  the 
judgment-seat  of  Christ. 

For  the  due  exercise  of  that  large  discretion  confided  by  the 
Church  to  any  three  of  her  Bishops,  they  are  responsible,  not  to  us, 
but  to  their  Lord  and  Master.  Whether  they  have  acted  in  the 
premises  wisely  or  unwisely,  is  not  the  point  for  us  to  determine. 
We  are  not  convened  to  try  them,  but  the  case  which  they  have 
taken  the  responsibility  of  bringing  before  us.  Neither  ought  we 
to  be  governed  by  considerations,  which  have  been  urged,  of  the 
great  evils  growing  out  of  the  trial  of  a  Bishop,  especially  where 
the  verdict  is  not  unanimous.  Such  evils  may  be  exceedingly 
great,  but  they  are  not  sufficient  warrant  for  declining  the  duty 
devolved  upon  us.  The  Church  has  not  left  to  us  the  question  of 
the  expediency  of  such  trials. 

That  point  she  has  herself  determined,  and  we  are  here  to  exe- 
cute her  provisions.  She  has  intrusted  to  certain  parties  the 
capacity  to  institute  such  a  proceeding,  but  no  such  capacity  has 
been  intrusted  to  us  as  a  convened  Court.  And  when  called  upon, 
in  conformity  with  the  rules  which  she  has  laid  down,  to  try  an 
accused  brother,  it  is  not  for  us  to  refuse  because,  in  our  private 
opinions,  a  trial  may  not  be  desirable  or  expedient. 

Grave  as  may  be  the  evils  resulting  from  a  protracted  and 
warmly  contested  trial,  the  allowance  of  impunity  to  guilt  would  be 
an  unspeakably  greater  evil.     Upon  the  abstract  question,  there- 


(    103    ) 

fore,  I  must  be  allowed  to  express  my  unqualified  dissent  from  the 
judgment  of  the  Court. 

The  peculiar  circumstances  of  this  case,  which  have  been  pre- 
sented to  us  in  the  memorial  of  the  Committee  of  the  Diocese  of 
New  Jersey,  or  from  other  authentic  sources,  and  the  arguments 
drawn  therefrom,  do  not  in  the  least  change  my  view  of  the  sub- 
ject. IIow  much  of  consideration  was  due  to  the  action  of  the 
Diocese,  was  a  question  rather  for  the  Presenting  Bishops  to  decide, 
than  for  this  Court. 

But  that  action  is  presented  to  us  as  the  ground  for  a  stay  of  pro- 
ceedings in  the  case  before  us.  The  result  to  which  the  investiga- 
ting Committee  have  arrived,  cannot  be  received  by  this  Court  as 
the  acquittal  of  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese,  for  that  Committee  was 
no  competent  tribunal  to  try  their  Bishop,  and  could  neither  acquit 
nor  condemn  him.  AVhile  we  are  bound  to  treat  with  respect  the 
action  of  a  Diocesan  Convention,  we  cannot,  with  proper  regard 
to  our  rights  and  duties  as  a  Court,  permit  them  to  arrest  our  pro- 
ceedings, and  interfere  with  our  regular  administration  of  justice. 

In  estimating  the  moral  weight  to  be  attached  to  the  exculpatory 
report  of  the  Committee,  my  mind  cannot  but  be  influenced  in  some 
degree  by  these  considerations.  The  Diocese  declined  any  action 
until  after  the  three  Presenting  Bishops  had  taken  up  the  matter. 

It  was  under  the  constraint  of  a  pending  presentment  that  the 
Convention  of  New  Jersey  appointed  this  Committee  of  investiga- 
tion. Priority  of  action  is  claimed  by  the  Diocese,  because  the 
report  of  this  Committee  was  previous  to  the  date  of  the  Present- 
ment before  the  Court.  But  this  claim  is  technical  rather  than 
real.  In  reviewing  the  history,  it  is  important  to  notice  the  fact, 
that  incipient  proceedings  of  the  three  Bishops,  the  result  of  which 
was  this  presentment,  anticipated  the  Diocesan  action.  That  Dio- 
cesan action,  I  am  convinced,  on  account  of  the  reasons  above 
alleged,  is  no  legal  bar.  And  in  considering  how  far  it  is  indicative 
of  a  readiness  on  the  part  of  the  Diocese  to  investigate  the  charges 
against  their  Diocesan,  the  fact  that  a  presentment  had  been  previ- 
ously made,  is  of  no  small  moment.  The  whole  aspect  of  the  case 
discovers  no  willingness  on  the  part  of  the  Diocesan  Convention  to 
entertain  this  question.  Their  action  seems,  as  it  were,  extorted  by 
the  apprehension  of  an  approaching  trial,  and  looks  very  much 
like  an  attempt  to  take  the  case  out  of  the  hands  of  the  proper  tri- 
bunal. They  express,  in  advance,  their  conviction  that  the  charges 
arc  without  foundation,  and  thus  prejudge  the  case.     At  the  time 


(    104    ) 

of  the  investigation,  many  of  the  most  material  witnesses  for  the 
prosecution  refused  to  attend  and  testify,  on  the  ground  that  an- 
other tribunal  had  cognizance  of  the  charges.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, the  result  of  the  ex  parte  examination  of  the  Committee 
does  not,  I  must  frankly  confess,  appear  to  me  a  satisfactory  dispo- 
sition of  the  charges.  But  whatever  weight  the  labours  of  the 
Committee  and  the  action  of  the  Diocese  may  be  entitled  to,  is,  as  I 
have  said  before,  for  the  Presenting  Bishops,  and  not  for  this  Court, 
to  consider.  Upon  the  view  now  taken  of  this  question,  it  is  quite 
immaterial  whether  the  Diocesan  Convention  of  July,  1852,  did  or 
did  not  consist  of  the  two-thirds  of  each  order,  required  by  the 
Canon  to  make  a  presentment.  They  did  not  present,  and  there- 
fore the  number  of  which  the  body  consisted  is  unimportant.  But 
in  reviewing  the  course  of  action  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey 
from  18-i9  to  the  present  time,  it  does  not  strike  me  as  furnishing 
to  the  Church  a  satisfactory  answer  to  the  accusations  preferred 
against  their  Bishop. 

Neither  does  it  consist  with  either  justice  or  kindness  to  the 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  now  to  arrest  these  proceedings,  and  ad- 
journ this  Court.  The  Committee  of  the  Convention  of  May,  1852, 
which  reported  the  resolutions  touching  the  investigation,  declares 
that  it  "is  conscious  of  the  grievous  wrong  and  evil  consequences  of 
keeping  such  charges  hanging  over  their  Bishop  and  the  Diocese." 

This  is  the  language  of  friendship  and  truth.  But,  in  dismissing 
this  presentment  and  declining  to  try  this  case,  is  not  this  Court 
responsible  for  the  same  "grievous  wrong  and  evil  consequences?" 
Do  not  we  leave  these  heavy  charges  still  hanging  over  the  Bishop 
and  the  Diocese  ? 

The  Bishop  stands  before  the  world  and  the  Church  accused,  and 
we  give  him  no  opportunity  of  meeting  these  accusations,  and  dis- 
persing the  cloud  that  has  gathered  around  him.  Such  a  course 
appears  to  me  the  opposite  of  kindness  to  an  accused  brother,  most 
undesirable  for  himself,  for  his  Diocese  and  for  the  whole  Church. 
While,  therefore,  to  be  exonerated  from  the  burden  and  responsi- 
bility of  this  trial,  (a  duty  to  which  I  came  with  great  reluctance,) 
will  be  to  me  individually  an  unspeakable  relief,  I  have  felt  con- 
strained to  record  my  vote  against  the  motion  to  dismiss  the 
Presentment,  and  must  dissent  from  the  judgment  of  the  Court 
granting  that  motion, 

Alfred  Lee, 
Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Ep.  Church  in  Delaware. 


(    105    ) 


OPINION  OF  THE  ASSISTANT   BISIIOT  OF  VIRGINIA. 

The  Assistant  Bishop  of  Virginia  dissents  from  the  Orders  of  the 
Court  founded  on  the  resohitions  of  the  Bishop  of  Indiana. 

The  third  Canon  of  18-i4  appoints  and  recognises  a  Court,  and  but 
one,  for  the  trial  of  a  Bishop,  consisting  of  his  peers,  to  be  convened 
by  notification  by  the  presiding  Bishop,  and  authorizing  him  to 
designate  the  time  and  place  of  meeting.  The  same  Canon  provides 
that  a  Bishop  may  be  presented  by  the  Convention  of  his  own  Dio- 
cese, and  by  any  three  Bishops ;  thus  appointing  two  ways,  by 
either  of  which  a  presentment  may  be  laid  before  the  presiding 
Bishop,  and  through  him  reach  the  canonical  tribunal.  The  Dio- 
cesan Convention  and  the  three  Bishops  are,  therefore,  co-ordinate 
bodies  for  the  purpose  of  presenting  a  Bishop.  Where  bodies  have 
concurrent  jurisdiction,  the  one  which  first  commences  action  ob- 
tains exclusive  control  in  the  case,  and  has  a  right  to  consummate 
its  proceeding  without  any  interference  by  the  other  co-ordinate 
power,  the  action  of  which,  under  these  circumstances,  would  be 
irregular  and  inadmissible. 

From  the  documents  in  possession  of  this  Court,  it  appears  that, 
before  any  inquiry  was  instituted  by  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  in- 
reference  to  the  rumours  affecting  the  character  of  their  Bishop,  the 
Bishops  of  Virginia,  Ohio  and  Maine  had  not  only  taken  the  initia- 
tory steps  to  a  Presentment  of  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  but  that 
a  former  Presentment  made  by  them  was  actually  in  the  hands  of 
the  presiding  Bishop,  and  notice  had  been  issued  by  him  to  the 
Bishops  of  this  Church  to  meet  at  Camden  on  the  24th  of  last 
June,  to  investigate  and  decide  on  the  charges  contained  in  that  Pre- 
sentment. It  further  appears  that  the  three  Bishops  named,  before 
taking  any  decisive  action  themselves,  did,  in  a  letter  addressed  to 
the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  recommend  and  urge  that  the  Conven- 
tion of  his  Diocese  should  thoroughly  examine  the  rumours  alluded 
to,  and  thus  relieve  the  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Ohio,  and  Maine  from 
the  painful  proceeding  which,  they  represented,  would  otherwise  be 
incumbent  on  them.  On  the  propriety  of  that  communication  it  is 
unnecessary  to  decide.  To  whatever  exceptions  it  may  be  deemed 
liable,  it  certainly  afforded  to  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  an 
opportunity  so  to  take  cognizance  of  the  case  as,  pending  their 
proceedings,  to  preclude  any  action  of  the  co-ordinate  body,  and  to 


(    106    ) 

satisfy  the  minds  of  all  interested  in  the  result.  It  is  mucli  to  be 
regretted  that  this  course  did  not  comport  with  their  views  of 
right.  The  special  Convention,  called  in  consequence  of  the  letter 
from  the  three  Bishops,  repelled  their  suggestion  ;  declared  its 
confidence  in  the  integrity  of  their  Diocesan ;  and,  having  expressed 
a  readiness  to  investigate  any  charges  made  by  responsible  persons, 
adjourned.  The  three  Bishops  now  set  themselves  to  the  inquiry 
from  which  the  Diocese  had  abstained,  satisfied  themselves  that  a 
Presentment  was  necessary,  prepared  one  in  due  form,  and  placed 
it  in  the  hands  of  the  presiding  Bishop,  who,  as  already  recited, 
called  a  Court  to  meet  in  Camden,  on  the  24th  of  June  last,  for 
the  trial.  From  these  facts  it  appears,  not  only  that  the  three 
Bishops  took  cognizance  of  the  case  prior  to  any  inquiry  on  the 
part  of  the  Diocese,  but  that  the  Presentment  by  them  was  made 
only  after  they  had  invoked  the  action  of  the  Diocese,  but  without 
success.  Why  any  posterior,  and  therefore  unauthorized,  diocesan 
action  in  this  case  should  prevent  this  Court  from  proceeding  to 
trial,  as  requested  by  the  presenting  Bishops,  I  cannot  perceive. 

It  has,  indeed,  been  urged  that  the  failure  of  the  Court  to  meet 
as  notified,  on  the  24th  of  June  last,  put  an  end  to  the  proceedings 
on  the  Presentment  which  had  been  made,  and  that,  between  that 
date  and  the  making  a  new  Presentment  in  July  last,  an  interval 
occurred,  when  the  possession  of  the  case  by  the  three  Bishops 
ceased ;  that  an  application  for  the  action  of  the  other  co-ordinate 
body  was  then  afforded ;  that  the  Diocese  availed  itself  of  this 
opportunity,  and  appointed  a  Committee  to  investigate  the  charges 
contained  in  the  Presentment;  that  this  Committee  notified  the 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese,  the  complainants,  and  the  reputed  witnesses, 
of  the  time  and  place  for  the  inquiry,  examined  under  oath  those 
who  appeared,  and  reported  the  testimony  taken,  to  the  Convention ; 
that  the  Convention,  thereon,  with  great  unanimity,  reaffirmed 
their  confidence  in  the  integrity  of  their  Bishop  ;  and  having  now, 
in  consideration  of  their  action  in  the  case,  appealed  to  the  Court 
to  proceed  no  further,  their  petition  ought  to  be  granted. 

But  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  only  effect  of  the  failure  of  the 
Bishops  to  meet,  as  notified,  on  the  24th  of  June,  was  to  inca- 
pacitate them  for  meeting  as  a  Court  to  try  this  case  without  a 
new  notification  from  the  presiding  Bishop.  Their  failure  to  meet 
did  not  put  an  end  to  the  Presentment  made.  That  Presentment 
was  still  in  the  hands  of  the  presiding  Bishop,  who  was  competent, 
and  whose  duty  it  was,  to  issue  new  notices  for  the  Bishops  to 


(    107    ) 

assemble  and  proceed  to  trial.  That  Presentment  might,  indeed, 
be  abandoned  by  the  Presenters,  or  it  might  be  amended  by  them, 
or  superseded  by  a  new  one,  provided  due  notice  of  such  amend- 
ment or  substitution  were  given  to  the  Bishop  presented.  They 
chose  the  course  last  named.  A  new  Presentment,  from  which  the 
first,  so  far  as  it  went,  did  not  materially  differ,  but  containing 
some  three  or  four  charges  not  in  the  first,  was  forwarded  by  them, 
and  received  by  the  presiding  Bishop  as  a  substitute  for  the  first; 
and  this,  with  Canonical  notice  of  time  and  place  for  the  trial,  was 
sent  to  the  persons  concerned.  Now,  as  the  first  Presentment 
continued  until  displaced  by  the  reception  of  its  substitute,  there 
was  no  cessation  in  the  proceedings  commenced  by  the  presenting 
Bishops ;  no  interval  of  action  on  their  part,  and  of  course  no 
opportunity  for  the  co-ordinate  body  to  enter  on  canonical  action. 
Thus  the  presenting  Bishops,  having  prior  possession  of  the  case, 
and  not  having  intermitted  their  hold,  they  ought  not  to  be 
interfered  with  until  the  proceedings  on  their  Presentment  are 
consummated. 

But  it  may  further  be  observed  that  if  there  had  been  the 
intermission  of  action  on  the  part  of  the  three  Bishops,  which  is 
alleged,  or  even  if  there  had  been  no  action  at  all  on  their  part 
anterior  to  the  date  of  the  new  Presentment,  still  there  was  nothing 
in  the  nature  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  to 
preclude  those  Bishops  from  the  right  to  present.  Had  that 
Convention  made  a  Presentment  of  their  Bishop,  this  indeed, 
but  nothing  short  of  this,  would  have  barred  like  action  by  the 
co-ordinate  body.  But  this  that  Convention  has  not  done.  On 
the  contrary,  after  an  inquiry,  the  Convention  pronounced  the 
charges  against  their  Bishop  to  be  without  foundation,  declined 
making  a  Presentment  themselves,  and  now  ask  that  their  negative 
conclusion  may  be  regarded  as  depriving  the  three  Bishops  of 
their  right  to  present.  That  is,  the  abstaining  of  one  of  the  bodies 
canonically  competent  to  present,  disqualifies  the  other  from  pre- 
senting. To  this  I  do  not  subscribe.  It  effectually  reverses  the 
provision  of  the  Canon,  and  frustrates  its  obvious  intention  ;  for,  on 
this  construction,  instead  of  having  two  bodies,  either  of  which 
may  present  a  Bishop,  which  was  evidently  designed,  we  should 
have  two  bodies,  either  of  which,  by  simply  refusing  to  act,  may 
prevent  the  other  from  presenting. 

Again,  I  regard  the  Orders  as  transcending  the  powers  of  this 
Court.     It  is  an  attempt  to  delegate  functions  which  it  has  no 


(    108    ) 

right  to  surrender,  and  to  transfer  them  to  a  body  incapable  of 
receiving  and  exercising  them.  There  is  but  one  Court  for  the  trial 
of  a  Bishop ;  whereas,  these  Orders  recognise  another  tribunal  for 
this  purpose,  affirm  its  decisions  as  far  as  it  has  proceeded,  and 
refers  to  it,  for  adjudication,  other  matters  on  which  it  has  not  yet 
passed.  This,  in  my  view,  is  a  relinquishment  of  power,  which 
this  Court  has  no  right  to  part  with.  It  is,  moreover,  a  transfer  of 
such  power  to  a  body  which  is  in  no  sense  a  Court,  but  a  local 
legislature  ;  known  in  no  other  capacity  by  the  General  or  Dio- 
cesan Constitution  and  Canons  ;  and,  if  a  Bishop  may  be  tried  only 
by  his  peers,  then  by  its  very  composition,  disqualified  for  any 
judicial  action  in  his  trial.  A  Diocesan  Convention  may  present, 
but  it  cannot  try  its  Bishop.  Now,  as  I  understand  these  Orders, 
the  first  sanctions,  the  second  authorizes,  that  judicial  action  in 
this  case  which  pertains  exclusively  to  this  Court,  i.  e.,  to  decide 
finally  on  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the  offences  charged  in  the 
Presentment. 

With  regard  to  the  inquiry  made,  and  reported  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  in 
consideration  of  which  this  Court  is  solicited  to  proceed  no  further 
on  the  business  for  which  it  has  been  convened,  I  would  remark 
that,  whilst  I  am  far  from  suspecting  the  sincerity  of  the  Diocese, 
or  the  honesty  of  the  investigation  conducted  by  the  Committee, 
and  highly  appreciating  the  zeal  and  affection  manifested  for  their 
Bishop,  yet  I  cannot  avoid  the  conviction,  that  the  circumstances 
in  which  the  Committee  were  placed,  rendered  it  impossible  for 
them  to  prosecute  the  inquiry  so  as  to  answer  the  ends  of  investi- 
gation. The  existence  of  the  Presentment  by  the  three  Bishops  was, 
at  this  time,  well  known.  The  call  of  an  Ecclesiastical  Court  to 
try  the  charges  contained  in  that  Presentment,  was  also  notorious. 
It  might,  therefore,  have  been  reasonably  expected  that  those 
witnesses,  on  whom  the  presenting  Bishops  relied  to  prove  the 
charges  preferred,  would  decline  appearing  before  any  body  other 
than  the  tribunal  called  to  try,  and  the  only  one  competent  to  give 
judgment  in  the  case.  And,  from  the  Eeport  of  the  Committee, 
such  precisely  has  proved  to  be  the  fact.  The  witnesses  who  did 
appear  were,  with  scarce  an  exception,  those  whose  testimony 
favoured  the  accused.  Others  declined  attending :  some  of  them 
assigning,  as  the  reason  of  their  absence,  that  they  did  not  recognise 
the  authority  of  the  Committee,  and  declaring  that  any  evidence 
which  they  could  furnish  would  be  given  to  the  tribunal  by  which 


(    109    ) 

the  Presentment  was  to  be  investigated.  Among  those  who  took 
this  ground  will  be  found  the  Hon.  Horace  Binney.  His  language, 
in  declining  to  appear  before  the  Committee,  is  as  follows: — 
"Keserving  myself  altogether  as  to  my  future  answer,  if  I  shall  be 
called  to  give  evidence  before  the  tribunal  to  which  the  Present- 
ment has  been  made,  my  answer  to  the  Committee,  since  appointed 
for  the  investigation  of  the  charges  against  Bishop  Doane,  is,  that  I 
do  not  deem  it  my  duty  to  attend  at  the  meeting  of  which  I  have 
received  notice."  If  one  so  eminent  for  legal  knowledge  and 
ability,  and  so  long  and  thoroughly  conversant  with  the  consti- 
tution, canons  and  proceedings  of  the  Church,  held  and  acted  on 
this  opinion,  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  others  adopting  and 
governing  themselves  by  the  same  views.  Whether  they  were 
wrong  or  not,  by  these  views  they  were  determined,  and  thus  the 
Committee,  without  any  fault  on  their  part,  were  placed  in  a 
position  which  rendered  a  full  investigation  impracticable,  and,  as 
the  result  of  their  inquiry,  they  have  been  compelled  to  make  a 
Report  which  is  palpably  ex  parte.  I  cannot,  therefore,  see  in  that 
Report,  and  the  Resolutions  of  the  Convention  founded  on  it,  any 
reason  for  abstaining  to  investigate  the  charges  set  forth  in  the 
Presentment.  Nor  can  I  perceive  how  the  peace  of  the  Church 
can,  under  such  circumstances,  be  promoted  by  summarily  dis- 
missing the  Presentment.  On  the  contrary,  my  clear  and  decided 
conviction  is,  that  the  interests  of  religion,  and  very  certainly  the 
interests  of  the  Respondent  in  this  case,  require  that  the  charges 
which  have  been  formally  advanced  and  persisted  in  by  the 
Presenters,  should  be  carefully  examined  and  fairly  disposed  of  by 
this  Court.  Such,  I  understand,  from  the  repeated  statements  of 
the  Respondent,  is,  so  far  as  he  is  personally  concerned,  (and,  apart 
from  the  action  of  his  Convention,  still  would  be)  his  own  con- 
viction. And  as  I  can  perceive  no  canonical  impediment  to  this, 
the  only  course  which  will  furnish  him  a  full  opportunity,  under 
circumstances  most  favourable,  for  answering  the  charges  made, 
and  vindicating  his  character  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  Brethren  and 
the  joy  of  the  whole  Church,  I  therefore  cannot  concur  in  the 
decision  of  the  Court,  "  not  now  to  proceed  to  any  further  action 
in  the  premises." 

J.  Johns. 


(   no   ) 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

I  EMBRACE  the  present  opportunity  of  putting  on  record  the 
reasons  which  govern  me  in  dissenting  from  the  judgment  of  the 
Court,  dismissing  the  Presentment. 

In  examining  the  Canon  relating  to  the  trial  of  a  Bishop,  I  find 
a  concurrent  right  in  the  matter  of  Presentment  granted  to  two 
parties,  the  one  of  these  being  the  Convention  of  the  Bishop's  Dio- 
cese, and  the  other  being  any  three  Bishops  of  our  Church.  When 
action  is  taken  by  either  one  of  these  parties,  the  other,  according  to 
an  established  rule  of  law,  the  justice  of  which  is  obvious,  is  thereby 
precluded  from  action. 

In  the  proposition  before  the  Court,  it  is  claimed  that  the  Con- 
vention of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  by  deciding,  previously  to 
the  date  of  the  present  Presentment,  that  no  Presentment  ought  to 
be  made,  has  superseded  the  action  of  the  three  Presenting  Bishops, 
and  that  therefore  the  Presentment  before  us  should  be  dismissed. 
Such  a  course  I  cannot  regard  as  allowable,  in  the  face  of  the  plain 
language  of  the  Canon ;  the  Diocesan  Convention  of  New  Jersey 
having  anticipated  the  Presentment  by  the  three  Bishops,  not  by 
acting,  but  by  declining  to  act.  But  it  is  obvious  that  such  an  inter- 
pretation of  the  Canon  as  allows  a  party  refusing  to  act,  to  oust  a 
party  subsequently  acting,  reduces  the  number  of  parties  authorized 
to  present  a  Bishop  from  two  to  one,  and  thus  defeats  the  clear  inten- 
tion of  the  provisions  of  the  Canon.  In  this  view  of  the  subject,  I 
cannot  give  my  assent  to  the  proposed  Order.  The  Presenting 
Bishops  have  acted  according  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  law,  and 
the  Court  is  bound  to  proceed  with  the  trial. 

Such  being  my  view  of  the  law,  I  am  further  impelled,  in  voting 
in  the  negative,  by  considerations  of  kindness  and  good- will  towards 
the  accused  Bishop  himself  The  dismissal  of  the  Presentment 
before  us,  on  the  ground  of  the  investigation  which  has  been  had 
by  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey,  is  calculated,  as  I  believe,  to 
inflict  upon  him  a  deep  injury.  It  is  on  record,  that  several  persons 
who  were  summoned  by  the  Committee  of  the  Convention  refused, 
on  the  ground  of  the  incompetency  of  the  tribunal,  to  attend.  It 
is  also  known  that  there  was  no  cross-examination  of  the  witnesses 
who  did  attend.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  whole  transaction 
wears  an  ex  parte  character.     The  Court  now  assembled  are  in  a 


(  111  ) 

condition  to  make  a  full  and  impartial  investigation  of  the  charges 
against  the  accused.  That  they  should  separate,  therefore,  without 
such  an  investigation,  is  an  event  which,  for  his  own  sake,  is  to  be 
deplored,  inasmuch  as  he  is  thereby  deprived  of  the  present  favour- 
able opportunity  of  disproving  the  allegations  of  the  Presentment. 
I  am  also  constrained  to  vote  against  this  Order,  by  a  regard  to 
the  just  expectations  of  the  Church  of  God.  The  charges  against 
the  accused  have  been  widely  known.  They  have  been  brought 
before  us  according  to  the  due  forms  of  law.  There  are,  in  my 
view,  no  just  impediments  to  hinder  our  trying  them,  and  thus 
proving  their  truth  or  falsehood.  If  we  refuse  to  proceed,  I  cannot 
but  feel  that  we  are  chargeable,  thereby,  with  a  neglect  of  the  most 
solemn  obligations  of  duty. 

Manton  Eastburn. 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 

I  AM  led  to  look  at  this  case  in  the  light  of  certain  facts  and 
general  principles,  which  I  humbly  think  have  not  received  suffi- 
cient attention,  when  Church  judicature  has  been  the  subject  of 
discussion  and  legislation. 

This,  clearly,  is  a  Court  of  a  very  peculiar  constitution,  and  of 
peculiar  functions.  The  Bishops  of  the  Church,  by  virtue  of  their 
Holy  Office,  bear  potentially  a  judicial  character — being  charged 
with  the  conservation  and  exercise  of  that  discipline  which  the 
Lord  has  appointed  for  the  comforting  and  strengthening  of  the 
weak,  the  alarming  and  reclaiming  of  the  disobedient,  the  main- 
taining of  salutary  order,  the  securing  of  harmony  and  due 
subordination,  and  the  healthy  advancement  of  the  honour  and  the 
general  interests  of  religion.  Canons  do  not  give  them  that  power, 
but  only  institute  a  way  in  which  its  functions  may  be  exercised. 

The  Canon  "of  the  trial  of  a  Bishop"  is  not  creative,  but 
formative  and  directive.  It  recognises  and  guides  power ;  but 
does  not  confer  it,  nor  absolutely  demand  its  exercise. 

Moreover,  the  authority  of  this  Court  and  of  each  member  of 
it,  while  administering  Canon  law,  is  subject  to  the  demands  of 
the  higher  law  of  charity ;  is  bound,  itself,  to  act  by  it  in  inter- 
preting Canons,  in  estimating  circumstances,  and  in  admitting  and 


(    112     ) 

weighing  pertinent  evidence ;  and  to  see  that  Canon  or  special  laws 
are  not  so  put  in  operation  against  the  members  of  Christ's  Body, 
as  to  separate  them  from  the  privileges  and  immunities  secured  to 
them  through  the  mercy  of  God,  by  that  higher  law.  Men  may 
not  claim  to  be  heard  in  Christian  Courts,  who  do  not  come  there 
by  all  the  preparatory  steps  prescribed  by  a  religion  in  which, 
under  God,  the  dominion  of  truth  is  established  by  law  and  order, 
and  by  the  sympathy  of  the  welfare  of  all  with  the  welfare  of  the 
individual. 

To  separate  the  law  of  righteousness,  in  dealing  with  a  supposed 
offender,  from  the  law  of  kindness — that  kindness  which  tenderly, 
and  trustfully,  and  hopefully  looks  upon  human  infirmity,  and 
seeks  anxiously  after  circumstances  of  palliation  and  exculpation, 
and  after  explanations  of  the  supposed  wrong,  before  extreme 
measures  are  resorted  to,  would  be,  not  to  hold  a  Court  under  the 
religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  to  assume  a  judicial  position  no  where 
and  never  authorized  by  the  Gospel. 

This  element  in  the  constitution  and  functions  of  this  Court,  and 
indeed  of  any  Court  in  the  Church,  appears  of  more  importance, 
when  we  take  into  account  another  consideration — a  consideration 
which  must  essentially  and  fundamentally  qualify  the  authority  of 
this  body,  regarded  as  a  Court  for  trying  questions  of  discipline. 
It  is  this — the  Bishops  do  not  possess  the  means  for  ascertaining 
facts,  which  the  civil  law  places  in  the  hands  of  the  secular  judge. 
They  do  not  sit  here  with  power  as  such  judges;  and  this  is  a 
Court,  only  by  approximation  and  partial  resemblance.  It  has 
not  the  power  to  coerce  witnesses.  This  is  a  consideration  of  the 
greatest  importance,  and  renders  it  certain,  beyond  all  question, 
that  the  discipline  ©f  the  Church  cannot  be  conformed  to  the  strict 
rules  of  evidence,  which  obtain  in  civil  courts. 

So  long  as  the  Courts  of  the  Church  cannot  compel  testimony, 
and  have  no  means  by  which  they  can  oblige  those  who  are  in  the 
2:)Ossession  of  facts  to  lay  aside  considerations  of  fear  and  of  private 
feelings,  of  like  or  dislike,  and  state  plainly  what  they  know,  it  is 
scarcely  possible,  if  it  were  right,  to  administer  law  by  the  letter,  in 
entire  severance  from  considerations  of  wisdom  and  general  equity. 
Laws  must  be  expounded  and  applied  in  view  of  the  necessity  of 
cases,  and  of  certain  general  principles,  which  must  underlie  aR 
statutes. 

It  is,  therefore,  just,  and  comes  ex  necessitate  rei,  that  in  this 
inability  they  regard  it  as  a  great  duty,  in  taking  counsel  for  the 


(    113    ) 

purity  and  peace  of  the  Church,  to  bring  to  bear  on  the  general 
purpose  of  law,  those  benign  provisions  of  wisdom  and  charity, 
which  tend  componere  lites  by  consulting  the  bond  which  makes 
and  consolidates  brotherhood. 

Ilence  the  Bishops,  in  Court  convened,  are  not  bound  in  duty 
to  shut  off  from  their  minds  all  knowledge  of  facts,  connected  with 
the  history  of  a  proceeding  against  a  Brother.  They  are  bound  in 
conscience  to  judge  according  to  knowledge,  however  the  knowl- 
edge may  have  been  gained.  The  Canon,  I  think,  implies  this. 
Else  why  is  it  required  that  they  be  furnished  with  copies  of  the 
Presentment  so  long  in  advance  of  the  trial,  if,  when  they  meet 
together,  they  are  to  know  nothing  but  that  which  comes  in 
formally  by  witnesses  ?  They  are  bound  to  act  with  a  tender,  and 
reverent,  and  equal  regard  for  the  rights  of  other  parties  than 
accusers — indeed  for  the  rights  of  other  parties  than  either  accusers 
or  accused.  They  are  bound,  if  to  them  it  appears  necessary  for 
the  securing  of  the  common  rights  and  interests  of  the  Church,  to 
do  precisely  what  has  been  done  in  the  present  case — that  is,  allow 
audience  to  a  third  party,  which  claims  to  show  that  the  present 
crisis  has  been  brought  about  in  the  way  of  outrage  on  the  rights 
of  an  independent  Diocese. 

After  a  careful  examination,  I  can  see  nothing  in  the  Canon 
"  of  the  trial  of  a  Bishop,"  which  shuts  out  all  other  methods  of 
disposing  of  the  case,  and  absolutely  requires  the  convened  Bishops 
to  proceed  to  a  trial.  There  certainly  may  be  cases  in  which  a 
formal  trial  would  be  almost  absurd.  Suppose  the  witnesses  of  an 
accused  Bishop,  acting  under  an  impression  that  the  proceeding 
grew  out  of  prejudice,  and  was  harsh  and  oppressive,  should  be  of 
opinion  that  their  Bishop  would  not  have  justice  done  him  at  any 
rate,  and,  acting  under  that  opinion,  should  decline  to  appear  in 
Court,  and  leave  his  adversaries  to  have  all  things  their  own  way ; 
while  the  accused  presents  an  affidavit  to  the  effect,  that  circum- 
stances place  a  defence  by  testimony  wholly  out  of  his  power — 
that  he  is  ready  and  willing  to  proceed,  if  the  Court  will  compel 
tlie  attendance  of  his  witnesses.  This,  surely,  would  not  be 
contumacy.  In  such  a  case,  would  a  Court  of  Christian  Bishops 
proceed  against  a  brother  by  an  ex  parte  trial  and  condemnation  ? 
Probably  not.  But  by  the  common  rules  of  law,  if  I  do  not 
mistake,  he  must  he  condemned,  because  he  can  offer  no  evidence  to 
rebut  the  testimony  of  his  accusers.  A  plain  case — the  evidence 
is  all  against  him.     Christian  Bishops,  however,  would  probably 

8 


(  11^  ) 

find  out  some  more  just  and  equitable  way  of  disposing  of  the 
case. 

This  supposition  presents  a  possible  case,  and  I  argue  from  it, 
that,  in  the  judicature  of  the  Church,  under  the  present  state  of 
things,  other  matters  are  to  be  thought  of  as  well  as  the  letter  of 
Canons,  and  the  rules  of  civil  judicature.  The  judicature  of  the 
Church  is  liable,  at  any  juncture,  to  be  brought  up  to  the  question 
of  no  trial  or  an  ex  parte  trial.  This  is  the  real  state  of  things,  and 
we  cannot  but  regard  it  with  thoughtfulness. 

Indeed,  it  is  remarkable  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Canon  which 
positively  requires  the  several  Bishops  to  be  present.  They  receive 
from  the  Presiding  Bishop  copies  of  the  Presentment,  with  notice 
of  a  time  and  place  when  and  where  they  may  convene.  If  at  the 
time  and  place,  out  of  about  thirty  Bishops,  there  shall  be  found 
together  the  number  of  seven,  those  seven  may  proceed  to  hold  a 
trial.  Or,  in  the  exercise  of  that  wise  discretion,  which  they  had 
applied  to  the  question  of  attendance  or  non-attendance,  and  under 
a  constraining  regard  for  the  rights  and  interests  of  all  the  parts  of 
the  Church,  they  may  decline  to  entertain  the  Presentment. 

Such,  in  my  view,  are  some  of  the  great  principles  which  should 
govern  us  in  disposing  of  the  Presentment  now  before  us.  After 
much  consideration — not  unaided  by  prayer — I  fully  believe  that 
this  Court  has,  under  a  reasonable  construction  of  the  laws  of  the 
Church,  and  on  the  principles  of  the  Gospel,  the  whole  matter  in 
its  power ;  it  may  proceed  to  a  trial,  or  it  may  dismiss. 

What  ought  we  now  to  do  ?     This  is  the  question. 

We  have  a  singularly  remarkable  case — a  Bishop  of  high  distinc- 
tion in  the  Church  presented  for  trial,  by  three  of  his  Brethren,  on 
charges  of  "crime  and  immorality,"  when  the  Convention  of  his 
Diocese,  after  a  careful  and  (as  it  was  intended)  strict  investigation, 
conducted  through  an  examination  of  such  witnesses  as  could  be 
induced  to  attend,  and  listening  to  reasonable  explanations,  has  sol- 
emnly declared,  "  that  its  confidence  in  the  integrity  of  its  Bishop 
is  renewed  and  strengthened,"  and  that,  in  its  opinion,  "  he  is  fully 
exculpated  from  any  charge  of  crime  or  immorality  made  against 
him,"  and  now  pray  this  Court  to  forbear  further  proceedings. 
Surely  such  a  prayer,  not  to  say  reasonable  claim,  demands  our 
respect  The  rights  and  interests  of  an  independent  Diocese  should 
not  be  set  at  naught.  The  peace  of  a  large,  and  united,  and  happy 
Christian  community,  should  not  be  lightly  invaded. 

But,  it  is  said,  Bishop  Doane  should  crave  a  trial.     At  least,  he 


(    115    ) 

appears  willing  to  meet  it.  That  remark,  however,  is  not  discreet. 
By  an  innocent  man,  a  trial,  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  excited 
and  prejudiced  minds,  is  not  to  be  desired ;  for  though  he  may  be 
fully  acquitted  of  crime  and  immorality,  yet  his  infirmities  and 
failings,  over  which  charity  would  have  kindly  cast  a  veil,  are  bla- 
zoned, and  he  is  gratuitously  held  up  to  the  distrust  of  the  weak 
and  the  scoffs  of  the  giddy. 

But,  it  is  said,  the  investigation  had  by  the  Convention  of  the 
Diocese  was  ex  jtarte.  So,  of  necessity,  must,  to  a  great  degree,  if  not 
quite,  be  any  trial  in  which  there  is  no  power  to  coerce  the  attend- 
ance of  witnesses.  All  that  this  Court,  or  the  parties  who  appear 
before  it,  can  in  any  case  do,  is  to  invite  the  attendance  of  those  who 
are  supposed  to  be  acquainted  with  facts.  Compulsion  or  penalty 
there  cannot  be  under  any  existing  legislation.  At  the  investigation 
held  under  the  authority  of  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey,  a  great 
number  of  supposed  witnesses  refused  or  neglected  to  give  attend- 
ance and  testimony,  though  an  opportunity  was  formally  offered 
them  for  that  purpose.  Before  this  Court  they  or  others  may  do 
the  same,  and  there  is  no  remedy.  A  trial  here  may  unavoidably 
be  equally  ex  jKirte. 

There  is  another  thing  which,  to  my  mind,  has  much  weight. 
Believing  that  this  Court  has  a  question  before  it,  to  be  disposed  of 
according  to  its  views  of  what  is  wise,  and  just,  and  equitable,  as 
respects  all  the  parties  affected,  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty,  in  weighing 
the  considerations  bearing  on  a  decision,  to  ignore  the  history  of 
this  Presentment.  Have  not  our  Brethren,  the  Presenters,  to  whom 
I  desire  to  accord  the  most  pure  conscientiousness  and  uprightness 
of  intention,  erred  against  the  high  law  of  charity,  against  the  peace 
of  the  Church,  and  against  the  indefinable  right  of  a  Brother,  under 
the  Gospel,  to  claim  a  hearing  at  the  ear  of  fraternal  love,  before 
being  placed  under  the  pressure  of  extreme  measures  ?  I  cannot 
but  think  they  have  so  erred,  and  that  it  is  a  consideration  which 
ou<^ht  to  enter  into  the  deliberations  of  this  body. 

The  Apostle  says,  "Let  your  things  be  done  with  charity." 
And  our  Lord  says,  "  If  thy  brother  sin  against  thee,  go  and  tell 
him  his  fault  between  thee  and  him  alone."  It  may  be  replied, 
"  A  letter  was  sent."  Yes,  truly — but  our  Brethren  erred  in 
sending  that  remarkable  paper,  under  the  law  of  charity.  Be- 
sides, the  command  is,  "  Go  and  tell  him  his  fault."  In  a  kind, 
and  tender,  and  sympathetic  presence  and  voice,  there  is  a  power 
which  the  Saviour  well  knew,  and  which  can  hardly  be  conveyed 


(    116    ) 

in  the  folds  of  even  a  friendly  letter.  If  this  had  been  done, 
I  doubt  whether  we  should  have  been  the  occupants  of  this  hall 
to-day.  That  charity  which,  in  the  Gospel,  is  the  law  of  laws, 
prescribes  a  course  founded  on  the  moral  and  social  position  of 
the  Church.  To  the  advantages  that  may  thus  accrue,  an  accused 
party  is  eminently  and  sacredly  entitled.  To  him  and  to  the 
Church  they  are  far  more  valuable  than  any  secular  rules  of  evi- 
dence, which,  under  strict  observance,  often  determine  the  acquittal 
of  the  notoriously  guilty,  and  the  condemnation  of  the  helpless 
innocent.  "We  cannot,  in  an  Ecclesiastical  Court,  follow  strictly  the 
rules  of  evidence,  and  do  justice. 

I  hold,  therefore,  that  the  Canon,  "  Of  the  trial  of  a  Bishop," 
is  to  be  construed  benignly,  as  respects  the  position  and  the  rights 
of  an  accused  party ;  and  that  even  though  the  Convention  of  New 
Jersey  had  not  moved  in  the  matter  at  all,  (much  more  since  it  has 
moved,)  this  Court  might  lawfully  entertain  a  motion  to  dismiss, 
and  might  lawfully  listen  to  argument  on  grounds  furnished  by  the 
history  of  the  Presentment,  and  by  the  light  of  such  general  prin- 
ciples as  must  govern  Ecclesiastical  Courts. 

On  the  Eesolutions,  I  give  my  voice  in  the  affirmative. 

Carlton  Chase. 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 

This  Court  having  ordered  that  the  charges  preferred  against  the 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  by  three  of  his  brethren,  shall  not  now  be 
tried,  on  the  ground  that  said  charges  have  been  or  are  to  be  inves- 
tigated by  the  Convention  of  his  Diocese, 

The  undersigned.  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania,  desires 
to  record  his  dissent,  in  the  terms  and  for  the  reasons  following : 

It  is  claimed,  that;  to  proceed  to  this  trial  would  involve  a  viola- 
tion of  the  rights  of  an  independent  Diocese.  Such  rights  are 
sacred  and  ought  to  be  respected.  What  are  they  ?  What  are  they, 
more  especially,  in  respect  to  the  Bishops  of  these  Dioceses,  and  in 
respect  to  the  case  now  before  us  ? 

It  will  not  be  contended  that  the  independence  of  a  Diocese  re- 
quires that  it  should  be  amenable,  in  itself  or  through  its  Episcopal 
head,  to  no  jurisdiction  but  its  own.     There  can  be  no  unity  in  the 


(    117    ) 

Church,  unless  the  parts  of  which  it  consists  maintain  a  mutual  de- 
pendence and  accountability.  Hence  we  find,  that  in  all  ages,  irregu- 
larities in  a  Diocese — if  thej  touched  important  matters  of  faith  or 
morals — could  be  inquired  into  and  corrected  by  the  intervention 
of  authority  not  belonging  to  that  Diocese.  Even  in  the  African 
Churches,  where  the  most  exalted  notions  respecting  the  rights  of 
independent  Dioceses  prevailed,  and  in  the  time  of  Cyprian,  who 
was  the  most  strenuous  champion  of  Episcopal  prerogative  in  ancient 
times,  it  was  expressly  conceded  that,  in  points  involving  deeply  the 
purity  of  the  Church,  the  conduct  of  any  Bishop  might  be  exam- 
ined into  by  his  brother  Bishops.*  And  we  seek  in  vain  for  evi- 
dence that,  in  that  age  or  in  any  primitive  age,  it  was  necessary  for 
such  Bishops  to  wait  till  the  Diocese  had  preferred  charges.  On  the 
contrary,  the  complaints  of  respectable  communicants,f  or  the  re- 
quisition of  the  Metropolitan  instituting  a  personal  inquiry  into 
alleged  disorders,:}:  formed  ground  sufficient  for  the  trial  of  such 
Bishop  before  his  peers.  Nor  do  we  find  that  it  was  expected  any 
where,  or  at  any  period,  that  a  Diocese,  as  such,  should  become  the 
accuser  of  its  spiritual  father. 

When  we  look  at  the  Constitution  of  our  own  Church  in  the  United 
States,  we  see  evidence  most  clear  and  striking,  that  the  powers  of  a 
Diocese,  in  respect  to  the  character  and  conduct  of  its  Diocesan,  are 
limited.  Each  Bishop,  after  he  has  been  chosen  by  a  Diocesan 
Convention,  is  subjected,  before  he  can  be  consecrated,  to  the  scru- 
tiny of  every  other  Bishop  in  our  confederacy  who  has  jurisdiction. 
He  is  subjected  also  to  the  scrutiny  of  every  other  Diocese,  acting 
through  its  constituted  representatives.  So  when  he  desires  to  resign. 
That  resignation  may  be  ofiered ;  it  may  be  accepted  by  the  Con- 
vention of  his  Diocese ;  but  still  it  is  not  consummated  till  it  has 
received  the  approval  of  a  majority  of  his  Episcopal  brethren. 

If  he  is  to  be  tried  for  an  offence,  the  Vlth  Article  of  our  Con- 
stitution expressly  enjoins,  that  the  Canon  or  Canons  under  which 
such  trial  takes  place  shall  be  passed,  not  by  his  own  Diocese,  but 
by  the  General  Convention.  By  that  Article,  first  adopted  within 
the  last  twelve  years,  the  power  which,  in  this  country,  a  Diocese 
once  had  to  enact  Canons  for  the  trial  of  its  own  Bishop — the  power 
which  it  had  to  institute  such  trial,  to  conduct  it  to  its  conclusion 
in  acquittal  or  conviction,  and  to  defy  all  future  revision — this 

*  Soc  Cypr.  Ep.  67  and  63.— See  also  Dupin,  Hist.  Eccles.  Writ.  Cent.  iii.  p.  180. 

t  See  Apostol.  Canons. 

t  See  Bingham,  Book  II.  Chap,  xvi. 


(    118    ) 

anomalous  power  was  then  taken  from  Dioceses,  and  lodged  witli 
our  National  Church,  where,  in  analogy  with  the  practice  of  other 
Churches,  and  the  evident  proprieties  of  the  case,  it  rightfully  be- 
longs.    The  language  of  this  Article  is,   "  The  mode  of  trying  Bishops 

SHALL   BE   PROVIDED   BY  THE  GENERAL   CONTENTION."      From  the 

very  nature  of  the  case,  as  well  as  in  the  estimation  of  the  best 
ecclesiastical  lawyers,  the  jurisdiction  thus  vested  in  the  General 
Convention  is  exclusive.  Since  the  adoption,  in  184:1,  of  this  Ar- 
ticle, no  Diocese  has  power  rightfully  to  legislate,  or  rightfully  to 
act,  in  regard  to  the  trial  of  its  Bishop,  except  so  far  and  in  such  way 
as  a  Canon  of  the  General  Convention  may  permit. 

What,  then,  is  the  language  and  spirit  of  these  Canons  ?  The 
first  on  this  subject — adopted  by  the  General  Convention — ^was  the 
lYth  of  1841.  It  was  enacted  three  years  before  the  case  arose  in 
Pennsylvania,  to  which  some  reference  has  been  made ;  so  that 
neither  the  original  framers  of  this  Canon,  nor  the  Convention 
that  enacted  it,  could  have  had  that  case  in  view.  In  that  Canon, 
of  which  the  present  on  the  same  subject  is  little  more  than  an  en- 
largement, the  power  to  present  a  Bishop  for  trial  is  given  to  three 
Bishops,  in  the  same  terms  precisely  as  now.  It  is  also  given  to 
the  Convention  of  his  Diocese,  hut  ivith  the  limitation  that  two-thirds 
of  both  orders  shall  concur.  In  the  Canon  as  it  now  stands,  (III. 
of  18-44,)  this  limitation  on  the  action  of  Dioceses  is  relaxed ;  it 
being  now  required,  not  that  two-thirds  of  both  orders  entitled  to 
seats  shall  concur,  but  that  two-thirds  shall  have  been  present  at 
the  session,  and  that,  of  those  present,  not  less  than  two-thirds  shall 
unite  in  making  the  presentment.  Let  it  be  observed  then,  that 
while  restrictions  are  thus  imposed  on  a  Diocese  when  it  would 
move  towards  presenting  a  Bishop,  no  restrictions  of  a  kindred 
nature  have  been  imposed  at  any  time  on  three  Bishops.  Let  it  be 
observed  further,  that  the  only  alteration  introduced  in  this  respect 
into  the  original  Canon,  is  one  ivhich  makes  it  more  easy  for  a  Diocese 
to  act,  not  one  which  makes  it  more  difficult  for  three  Bishops  to  do 
so.  The  terms  in  which  their  power  to  act  is  described,  are  per- 
fectly general — "  It  (a  presentment)  may  also  be  made  by  any  three 
Bishops  of  this  Church." 

A  member  of  this  Court,  who  was  one  of  the  Committee  on 
Canons  in  the  House  of  Deputies  in  1844,  when  our  law  on  this 
subject  took  its  present  form,  states  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  per- 
mission to  present  would  not  have  been  continued  to  three  Bishops, 
but  with  the  understanding  that  it  should  be  used  only  in  certain 


(    119    ) 

cases.  The  answer  is  obvious.  The  original  framers  of  the  Canou 
in  1841,  and  its  modifiers  in  1844,  were  careful  to  express  clearly 
and  precisely  the  limitations  which,  in  this  respect,  they  intended 
to  impose  on  Dioceses.  Is  it  likely  that  they  would  have  been  less 
careful  in  respect  to  limitations  which  they  designed  to  impose  ou 
three  Bishops  ?  If  it  were  their  purpose — as  is  now  alleged — that 
the  Diocese  should  always  have  a  prior  right  to  proceed,  or  that 
the  interposition  of  three  Bishops  should  be  allowed  only  when  the 
Bishop  to  be  presented  was  without  jurisdiction,  or  was  charged 
with  heresy — is  it  to  be  conceived  that  restrictions  and  limitations 
so  all-important  should  find  no  place  in  the  language  they  em- 
ployed ?  Those  restrictions  could  have  been  expressed  in  half  the 
space  actually  employed  in  tying  up  the  hands  of  the  Convention 
of  the  Diocese.  Where  power,  then,  is  given  in  one  direction 
under  precise  limitation,  and  in  the  other  is  given  without  any 
such  limitation,  expressed  or  implied,  is  it  not  to  be  concluded  that, 
in  the  latter  case,  limitation,  in  the  judgment  of  the  law  makers, 
was  unnecessary  ?  Three  Bishops  can  act,  under  this  Canon,  only 
at  a  fearful  sacrifice  of  time  and  feeling,  and  at  a  hazard,  not  less 
fearful,  to  their  reputation  and  influence.  They  must  expect  that 
their  motives  will  be  impeached,  and  their  judgment  called  in  ques- 
tion. They  must  expect  that  private  sympathy  will  often  take  the 
place  which  ought  to  be  held,  in  the  hearts  of  Christians,  by  an 
enlightened  zeal  for  the  honour  and  purity  of  the  Church.  The}'' 
must  expect  that  the  odium  which,  in  ages  of  tyranny,  became  at- 
tached to  the  name  and  oflice  of  prosecutor,  will  be  industriously^ 
transferred  to  their  thankless  task ;  and  that,  if  they  fail  to  make  good 
the  charges  which  they  have  felt  bound  to  prefer,  they  will  stand 
condemned,  not  only  by  their  brethren,  but  in  the  estimation  of 
the  Church  and  the  world.  Under  such  circumstances,  it  was  not 
to  be  presumed  that  Bishops  would  court  the  office  of  presenters ; 
nor  is  it  to  be  supposed  that,  in  the  judgment  of  those  who  enacted 
this  Canon,  they  would  require  to  be  subjected — in  the  exercise  of 
it — to  stringent  limitations.  The  danger  to  be  apprehended  was, 
that  they  would  shrink  back  when  duty  summoned — not  that  they 
would  thrust  themselves  forward  uncalled. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  under- 
signed, this  appeal  to  the  recollections  of  individuals,  in  respect  to 
the  intentions  of  a  legislative  body,  is  entirely  fallacious.  It  can 
give  us  nothing  but  the  impressions  of  one  or  a  few  persons,  who 
might  have  been  concerned  in  introducing  or  sustaining  a  measure. 


(    120    ) 

Eespecting  the  motives  of  others  who  may  Lave  concurred  with 
them,  and  the  animus  of  the  whole  body  of  the  two  Houses  who 
adopted  it,  it  affords  no  reliable  information.  The  real  intention 
of  a  law  can  be  collected  only  from  the  language  of  the  Canon, 
from  the  recorded  circumstances  under  which  it  was  passed,  and 
from  the  general  analogies  of  law,  ecclesiastical,  civil,  and  common. 
Were  it  proper  or  really  relevant,  testimony  could  easily  be  ad- 
duced, from  one  who  was  present  at  the  time  when  the  idea  of 
giving  such  power  to  three  Bishops  was  first  conceived  in  1841, 
and  the  provision  was  first  embodied  in  language  in  order  to  be 
introduced  into  Canon  IV.  of  that  year.  This  testimony  would 
show,  that  the  express  object  of  those  who  acted  in  the  matter, 
was  to  provide  for  a  then  existing  case  of  supposed  immorality,  in 
a  Bishop  whose  Diocese  was  not  at  all  likely  to  present  him  by  a 
two-thirds  vote. 

But  what  is  the  language  of  the  Canon  ?  It  says,  in  substance, 
that  the  Bishop  of  a  Diocese  may  he  presented  in  two  ways  ;  the  effect 
of  the  construction  contended  for,  if  once  established,  would  be  to 
render  it  next  to  impossible  that  he  could  be  presented  in  more 
than  one  way.  The  right  to  perform  this  painful  and  most 
responsible  duty,  it  gives  to  two  parties.  To  each  it  gives  the 
power  to  present;  to  one  only  (the  Diocese)  does  it  give  that 
power  subject  to  any  other  limitations  than  such  as  may  be  im- 
posed by  private  convictions  of  duty.  It  gives  to  both  the  right  to 
proceed ;  but  to  neither  does  it  give  the  right  or  power  to  interpose 
in  order  to  review  or  set  aside  a  proceeding  which  may  have  been 
instituted  by  the  other.  That  power  it  reserves  to  the  Court  which 
assembles  to  try  the  specifications.  If  one  or  other  of  these  parties 
decide  summarily  not  to  inquire — or,  having  inquired  in  an  ex  parte 
manner  or  otherwise,  determine  not  to  present — its  declining  to  act 
cannot  divest  the  other  party  of  its  co-ordinate  and  independent 
jurisdiction  over  the  same  subject.  It  creates,  on  the  contrary,  the 
very  case  contemplated  by  the  Cation  luhen  it  provided  two  methods  of 
proceeding  ;  so  that  if  one  party,  from  motives  of  delicacy  or  pru- 
dence, shrink  from  the  task  of  taking  an  invidious  and  most  dis- 
agreeable position,  or  prove  itself  unequal  to  it,  there  may  be 
another  to  act :  that  thus  in  some  way  the  fame  of  a  Bishop  who  is 
evil  spoken  of  may  be  vindicated,  if  he  be  innocent ;  or  the  honour 
and  purity  of  the  Church  asserted,  if  he  be  guilty. 

The  relation  of  the  parties  empowered  to  present,  seems  then  to 
be  this.     They  are  co-ordinate.     The  action  of  neither  has  binding 


(    121    ) 

effect  on  the  other.  Independent  presentments  may  be  made  by 
each — as  is  the  case  in  .the  English  Courts  when  the  Grand  Jury 
find  an  indictment,  and  the  Attorney  General  files  an  information. 
Or  both  may  decline  to  present,  or  one  may  present  and  the  other 
decline.  It  is  evident  that  if  charges  have  been  investigated  and 
dismissed  by  one  party,  it  imposes  increased  responsibility  before 
the  Church  and  the  world  on  the  other  party,  should  they  conclude, 
on  inquiry,  to  make  those  same  charges  the  ground  of  present- 
ment. But  before  this  Court,  neither  party  can  properly  appear, 
except  for  the  one  purpose  of  demanding  a  trial.  Neither  can 
assume,  by  its  action,  to  override  or  nullify  the  independent  action 
of  the  other ;  and  the  attempt  to  do  so  ought  to  be  promptly  re- 
buked by  the  Court  as  an  interference  with  its  own  rights  and 
authority,  and  as  destructive  to  Church  discipline  in  its  most  im- 
portant branch. 

If,  when  charges  are  duly  preferred  against  a  Bishop,  either  by 
his  own  Diocese  or  by  three  of  his  Brethren,  this  Court  cannot  pro- 
ceed to  investigate  such  charges,  till  they  have  first  been  scrutinized 
by  another  body,  which,  though  authorized  by  Canon  to  prefer 
them,  declined  or  neglected  to  do  so  ;  and  if,  on  such  scrutiny  being 
made — the  scrutiny  (be  it  observed)  of  a  Court  of  Inquest  whose 
proceedings  are  in  their  very  nature  ex  parte  and  extra-judicial — 
such  charge  shall  be  pronounced  frivolous  or  unfounded,  and  there- 
upon this  Court  shall  refuse  to  put  the  accused  upon  his  trial,  it 
need  hardly  be  said  that  it  will  place  itself,  by  such  a  course,  in  a 
position  the  most  equivocal  and  undignified.  And  it  seems  evi- 
dent that,  were  such  a  course  to  receive  the  sanction  of  the  Church, 
it  would  ultimately  become  impossible  to  bring  any  Bishop  to 
trial,  in  whose  behalf  any  three  Bishops  or  the  majority  of  his  Con- 
vention, might  be  willing  to  interpose. 

If  the  undersigned  does  not  entirely  misconceive  the  spirit  and 
intent  of  Canon  III.  of  18-14,  it  gives  to  a  Diocese  but  one  right 
before  this  Court  in  respect  to  its  Bishop,  if  he  be  accused  of 
wrong-doing.  This  is,  the  right  of  presenting  him  for  trial. 
Declining  to  exercise  that  right,  it  is  by  no  means  competent  for 
it,  in  its  Diocesan  capacity,  to  interfere  for  his  defence.  Still  less  is 
it  competent  for  it  to  set  aside  the  authority  of  this  Court,  and  under- 
take to  try  him  for  and  by  itself  In  this  respect  the  Committee 
of  the  New  Jersey  Convention  seem,  in  the  Representation  which 
the}'-  were  pemiitted  to  read  here,  seriously  to  have  misapprehended 
the  province  of  a  Diocesan  Convention.     On  page  22  of  the  printed 


(    122    ) 

copy,  they  express  themselves  as  follows  :  "  What  has  been  read  to 
you  touching  the  first  presentment,  applies  to  all  the  charges  in  the 
new,  which  are  identical  with  those  examined  ;  and  forms  (together 
with  the  testimony  which  was  taken,  and  which  we  have  the 
honour  to  supply  for  your  inspection)  our  ansvjer  to  those  charges, 
whether  in  the  old  or  in  the  new  ;  and  tlie  verdict  of  the  Convention 
of  New  Jersey,  as  regards  those  things  which  at  that  time  had  been 
preferred."  On  the  same  page,  they  speak  of  their  "  refutation"  of 
the  charges ;  and  on  page  20,  they  say,  "  The  Diocese  of  New 
Jersey  has  pronounced  a  verdict  of  acquittal,  and  now  stands  before 
you  to  plead  that  verdict  in  all  its  Canonical  force  and  moral  weight, 
to  present  it  as  the  expression  of  her  deep  and  heartfelt  conviction 
that  enough  has  been  done,  so  far  as  concerns  the  charges  which 
have  been  examined,  to  meet  every  claim  of  law  or  of  truth ;  and 
that  for  you  to  proceed  with  a  trial,  would  be  unjust  to  the  Bishop, 
injurious  to  the  Church  at  large,  and  degrading  to  herself" 

In  the  first  of  these  passages,  they  speak  of  the  Convention,  or 
of  its  Committee,  as  if  it  were  their  right  and  duty  both  to  answer 
the  charges  as  counsel,  and  to  pronounce  upon  them  as  judges ; — a 
novel  position  for  any  party  claiming  to  be  a  competent  and  impar- 
tial umpire,  and  especially  for  a  party  not  known  to  the  Canon  in 
either  of  the  capacities  assumed.  In  the  second  passage,  they  claim 
distinctly  to  be  a  tribunal  that  has  power  and  authority  to  try  the 
charges,  and  render  in  a  verdict  of  acquittal,  which  ought  not  only 
to  satisfy  the  Church  at  large,  but  be  a  bar  in  this  Court  to  the 
exercise  of  the  jurisdiction  with  which  we  alone  have  been  charged. 
Such  claims,  in  the  estimation  of  the  undersigned,  are  not  only  in- 
admissible under  the  provisions  of  the  law,  but  are  to  be  deeply 
deplored  as  most  unfriendly  to  the  order  and  unity  of  the  Church. 

It  has  been  the  anxious  desire  of  the  undersigned  to  discuss  the 
question  before  the  Court  as  an  abstract  question  of  Canon  law, 
which  ought  to  be  disposed  of  on  fixed  and  well-known  general 
principles.  If  he  must  refer  to  the  action  of  the  Diocese  of  New 
Jersey,  he  finds  himself  compelled  to  say,  that  the  course  of  its  Con- 
vention, in  1849,  in  refusing  to  entertain  a  resolution  of  inquiry 
into  alleged  rumours — though  it  might  have  been  proper  under  the 
circumstances — evinced  no  special  readiness  to  institute  such  in- 
quiry. "When  next  the  subject  came  before  the  Convention,  in 
March  of  the  present  year,  that  body,  while  it  alleged  that  it  had 
"  ever  been  ready  to  make  investigation,"  yet  felt  "  no  hesitation  in 
expressing  its  decided  opinion  that  the  best  interests  of  the  Diocese 


(    123    ) 

and  of  the  Church  at  large  required  no  such  proceedings."  This 
declaration  was  made  while  the  Convention  had  in  its  possession 
specific  charges,  preferred  on  the  responsibility  of  five  lay  commu- 
nicants ;  and  it  indicates,  under  such  circumstances,  of  com-se  any 
thing  but  willingness  to  enter  on  a  searching  inquiry.  To  contend 
that  the  Convention,  in  this  case,  was  precluded  by  the  terms  in 
which  it  was  called  together,  from  entertaining  a  motion  to  inquire, 
would  be  causing  it  to  stultify  itself;  since,  in  resolving  that  such 
inquiry  was  unnecessary,  it  in  effect  resolved,  that  it  had  power  to 
make  it. 

The  matter  came  up  again  in  the  Annual  Convention  of  June 
last,  when,  the  Presenting  Bishops  having  taken  the  fearful  respon- 
sibility of  doing  that  which  the  Convention  had  omitted  to  do,  it 
would,  in  the  opinion  of  the  undersigned,  have  been  wiser,  more 
decorous,  and  more  for  the  peace  as  well  as  for  the  order  and 
authority  of  the  Church,  if  they  had  remained  passive.  They 
appointed,  however,  a  Committee  of  lay  members  of  the  Convention 
to  make  an  investigation ;  and  this  Committee,  on  which  no  pres- 
byter or  Bishop  was  allowed  to  sit,  and  to  the  deliberations  of  which 
the  three  presenting  Bishops,  though  they  were  regarded  as  the 
only  responsible  accusers,  were  not  to  be  invited — this  Committee, 
composed  exclusively  of  laymen,  proceeded  to  discharge  their 
duty.  Their  report  shows,  that  neither  of  the  four  lay  communi- 
cants, who  preferred  charges  in  the  first  instance,  consented  to 
appear  and  give  their  testimony,  or  unite,  in  any  way,  in  the 
inquiry.  It  also  shows  that  Horace  Binney,  Michael  Hayes,  Joseph 
Deacon,  Joseph  Deacon's  daughter,  Rev.  Mr.  Sherman,  Mrs.  S.  C. 
Robardet,  Mrs.  C.  Lippincott,  William  H.  Carse  and  wife,  John 
Black,  and  others,  did  not  appear,  though  summoned ;  and  no  one 
can  have  read  the  charges  without  seeing  that,  among  those  named, 
were  persons  relied  upon  by  the  presenters  as  among  the  most  im- 
portant witnesses  to  sustain  the  charges  they  preferred.  Under 
such  circumstances,  the  result  reached  by  the  Committee  can  be 
regarded  in  no  other  light,  than  as  the  result  of  an  ex  jiarte  in- 
vestigation. Those  wishing  to  exonerate  the  Bishop  appeared; 
those  proposing  to  inculpate  him  declined,  and  in  several  instances 
distinctly  demurred  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Committee.  Their 
conclusions  come  before  us,  then,  impressed  with  the  same  charac- 
ter which  belongs  to  the  Presentment — that  of  being  partial  and 
one-sided.  So  far  as  the  presenting  Bishops  are  concerned,  we 
have  the  result  of  an  ex  j^arte  inquiry  ivithout  the  evidence  on  which 


(    124    ) 

tliat  result  is  predicated.  So  far  as  the  Bishop  presented  is  con- 
cerned, we  have  before  us  (irregularly,  as  the  undersigned  conceives) 
an  ex  parte  result,  with  the  evidence  on  which  it  i^  founded.  Parties 
have  never  been  confronted,  witnesses  have  not  been  cross-examined, 
issues  have  not  been  joined.  It  is  submitted  that,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, it  is  preposterous  to  say  that  there  has  been,  in  the 
Diocese  of  New  Jersey  or  elsewhere,  any  investigation  of  charges 
which  can  be  regarded  as  full  and  satisfactory;  much  less  any 
which  ought  to  set  aside  a  presentment  duly  made,  or  serve  as  an 
estoppel  to  charges  preferred  subsequently. 

The  undersigned  cannot  conclude,  without  expressing  his  sincere 
desire  to  find  some  ground  on  which  the  necessity  of  going  into 
this  trial  can  be  averted.  The  Canon,  as  it  now  stands,  is  harsh  in. 
its  provisions.  It  gives  to  the  accused  Bishop  no  right  of  challenge. 
It  subjects  him  to  be  condemned  and  punished,  even  to  degrada- 
tion, by  the  vote  of  a  mere  majority  of  those  Bishops  who  may 
happen  to  attend  his  trial,  and  it  affords  him  no  proper  privilege 
of  appealing  from  the  sentence.  It  is  also  indefinite  and  incomplete 
in  other  respects.  Until  our  legislation,  then,  can  be  amended,  it 
would  be  a  great  relief  to  be  excused  from  a  duty  so  painful  as  the 
one  to  which  we  are  called.  The  undersigned  is  by  no  means  cer- 
tain that  suSicient  ground  for  staying  these  proceedings  may  not 
be  found.  He  cannot  find  it,  however,  in  the  direction  indicated 
by  these  resolutions.  Powers  are  there  ascribed  to  Dioceses,  from 
which,  as  it  seems  to  hira,  they  are  expressly  precluded  by  law ;  and 
the  exercise  of  which,  under  our  present  Constitution,  and  in  view 
of  the  essential  nature  of  every  National  Church,  can  only  tend  to 
irregularity  and  insubordination.  He  feels  bound  to  add,  that  the 
attempt  which,  in  this  case,  has  been  made — both  through  the 
Eespondent  and  through  his  Diocese — to  supersede  the  regular 
course  of  judicial  proceedings,  and  to  carry  this  cause  to  the  bar  of 
the  public  on  ex  parte  representations,  before  it  could  be  brought 
regularly  before  this  Court,  appears  to  him  to  be  a  precedent 
fraught  with  most  dangerous  consequences,  and  one,  therefore, 
which  ought  to  be  distinctly  and  sternly  rebuked. 

In  regard  to  the  innocence  or  guilt  of  the  Eespondent,  it  is  a 
question  not  now  in  any  sense  before  this  Court.  He  may — to  the 
mind  of  the  undersigned — be  invested  with  the  strongest  possible 
presumption  of  being  guiltless,  and  of  having  been  unjustly  or 
unwisely  arraigned ;  yet  this  would  not  justify  a  member  of  the 
Court  in  declining  to  go  into  his  trial,  except  there  are  reasons 


(    125    ) 

wliicli,  to  him,  seem  capable  of  being  vindicated  on  such  principles 
of  law  and  equity  as  have  been  recognized  by  the  wisdom  of  ages 
in  Church  and  State.  It  is  because  he  has  not  been  able  to  dis- 
cover such  principles  in  the  Resolutions  now  in  question,  that  the 
undersigned  finds  himself  compelled  to  give  his  vote  in  the  negative. 

A.  Potter. 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  INDIANA. 

The  Resolutions  before  the  Court,  originally  proposed  by  the  Bish- 
op of  Michigan,  but  which,  for  considerations  of  delicacy  personal  to 
himself,  he  was  permitted  to  withdraw,  and  which,  in  order  to  the 
discussion  and  settlement  of  the  great  principles  therein  involved, 
were  immediately  renewed  by  myself,  are  now  to  be  decided  by  the 
vote  about  to  be  taken.  And  I  proceed  to  give,  and  put  on  record, 
my  reasons  for  voting  in  the  affirmative. 

Assuming,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  what  I  hope  presently  to 
show  is  not,  and  can  not,  be  true,  that  the  interpretation  of  Section 
1,  of  Canon  III.,  of  1814 — "  of  the  trial  of  a  Bishop" — which  claims 
for  any  three  Bishops  of  this  Church  co-ordinate  authority  with  the 
Convention  of  a  Diocese,  in  making  a  presentment  of  its  Bishop, 
is  the  right  interpretation;  these  Resolutions,  in  my  judgment, 
ought  to  pass,  because,  in  the  case  before  us,  action  in  the  premises 
had  been  begun  and  completed  by  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey, 
touching  the  matters  complained  of,  prior  to  any  action  on  the  part 
of  the  Presenting  Bishops,  so  far  as  concerns  the  presentment  before 
us,  called,  by  the  late  Presiding  Bishop,  in  his  summons  convenin"- 
this  Court,  a  neio  presentment,  and  which  is  strictly  such.  The 
Convention  of  New  Jersey  have  exercised  their  right — a  right 
which  I  deem  clearly  conceded  to  a  Diocesan  Convention  by  the 
letter,  to  say  nothing  of  the  spirit,  of  the  Canon — of  priority  of 
action  ;  and  such  action,  the  Presenting  Bishops  themselves  beinty 
judges,  is  a  bar  to  any  action  on  the  part  of  any  three  Bishops. 
For,  in  their  letter  of  friendly  counsel  and  advice,  addressed  to  the 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  dated  September  22d,  1851,  and  delivered 
on  the  2d  of  February,  1852,  they  say,  "  it  must  have  been  the 
expectation  of  the  Church,  in  her  Canon  for  the  trial  of  a  Bishop, 
that  action  shall  first  take  place  in  Diocesan  Conventions,"  and  "  it 


(    126    ) 

appears  to  us,  that  it  is  only  when  a  Diocesan  Convention  refuses 
to  institute  an  inquiry,  or  neglects  to  do  it  for  too  long  a  period,  or 
performs  the  duty  unfaithfully,  that  the  Bishops  can  be  reasonably 
expected  to  interpose."  Now  what  is  the  fact  ?  It  is  plain  and  un- 
deniable. The  Convention  of  New  Jersey,  on  the  14th  day  of 
July,  1852,  received  and  adopted  a  report  from  the  Committee  of 
Investigation  appointed  at  its  annual  meeting  in  May,  exonerating 
the  Eespondent  from  all  the  charges  preferred  against  him,  and  pro- 
nouncing him  blameless ;  whereas,  this  presentment  bears  date  the 
22d  of  July,  1852,  eight  days  subsequent  to  this  action  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

It  is  contended,  however,  that  although  this  be  the  naked  fact, 
yet,  as  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  only  made  an  inquiry,  (which 
the  Presenting  Bishops,  in  their  letter  just  quoted,  pronounce  to  be 
such  a  fulfilment  of  duty  in  the  premises  as  to  preclude  the  neces- 
sity of  any  action  by  any  Bishops,)  and  did  not  make  a  presentment, 
that  therefore,  the  action  of  the  Convention,  in  "instituting  an 
inquiry,^'  is  of  no  account,  as  a  bar  to  further  proceedings  on  the 
part  of  the  Presenters.  An  inquiry,  made  expressly  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  whether  or  no  a  presentment  is  demanded,  it 
is  insisted,  is  no  part  of  the  action  contemplated  by  the  Canon, 
which  speaks  of  a  presentment  alone,  and  restrains  the  Convention 
rigidly  to  that.  Now  how  can  a  presentment  be  made,  without  a 
previous  inquiry  as  to  its  necessity,  and  into  the  cause  or  causes 
requiring  it?  It  is  an  indispensable  preliminary,  in  the  very 
nature  of  things.  And  if  such  inquiry  results,  as  in  the  present 
case,  in  the  clear  conviction,  from  the  carefully  ascertained  blame- 
lessness  of  the  accused  Bishop,  that  a  presentment  is  not  demanded, 
and  would  be  manifestly  unjust,  is  it  not  an  outrage  on  common 
sense,  to  assert  and  argue,  that  such  inquiry  is  no  part  of  the  action 
of  the  Convention  authorized  by  the  Canon  ?  Is  inculpation  the 
only  duty  of  the  Convention  ?  Is  not  exculpation,  if  there  be  just 
ground  for  that,  equally  its  duty  ?  The  one  of  necessity  involves 
the  other.  And  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey,  having,  upon  suf- 
ficient inquiry,  found  no  cause  to  condemn,  surely  they  are  at  liberty 
to  say  so,  nay,  bound  in  justice  to  say  so,  and  virtually  acquit,  by 
pronouncing  a  presentment  in  the  present  instance  uncalled  for  and 
unjust,  without  invalidating  their  claim  to  have  taken  prior  action 
in  the  premises. 

The  Convention  of  New  Jersey  having  acted,  and  acted  sufii- 
ciently,  and  to  an  extent  which  the  strictest  justice  requires,  as  its 


(    127    ) 

Committee,  in  the  statement  and  appeal  wliicli  tbey  were  permit- 
ted to  read  to  this  Court,  represent, — it  has  done  all  the  Canon 
requires  ;  and  its  decision  ought  to  be  final,  and  a  bar  to  any  fur- 
ther procedure  against  the  Respondent.  It  has  "  performed  the 
duty  faithfully,"  as  the  document  accompanying  the  Statement  and 
Appeal  of  the  Committee,  containing  a  full  detail  of  the  investiga- 
tion instituted  by  the  Convention,  satisfactorily  proves.  And  it 
stands  ready,  and  pledges  itself  to  investigate  the  additional  speci- 
fications of  this  new  presentment,  and  has  already  begun  action  in 
relation  thereto,  by  the  calling  of  a  special  meeting,  to  be  convened 
on  the  27th  inst.  Now  after  this — all  this — has  been  done,  by  those 
who  had  a  perfect  canonical  right  to  originate  and  take  action  in 
the  case,  what  right,  what  reasonable  plea,  is  there  or  can  there  be, 
for  reviewing  this  action,  and  virtually  pronouncing  it  null  and 
void  ?  Does  the  letter  of  the  Canon,  to  say  nothing  of  its  spirit, 
give  the  Presenting  Bishops  authority  to  set  aside  this  solemn 
judgment  of  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey,  and  say.  You  have 
not  *'  performed  the  duty  faithfully ;"  you  have  been  careless,  or 
partial,  or  desirous  of  screening  your  Bishop  ?  We  are  not  satisfied, 
though  you  and  the  diocese  you  represent  are ;  we  are  informed 
by  four  laymen  that  there  is  ground  for  presentment;  we  have 
come  from  our  distant  homes,  in  the  South,  the  West,  and  the  East, 
into  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  the  Diocese  of  another  Bishop,  as 
representatives  of  the  General  Church,  which  we  deem  to  have 
been  scandalized  and  aggrieved  by  the  alleged  misconduct  of  the 
Respondent ;  and  we — with  the  assistance  of  the  four  irresponsible 
complainants — have  investigated  the  charges,  and  "believing  him 
to  be  guilty,"  we,  notwithstanding  your  prior  action,  having  co-or- 
dinate authority  with  you,  are  determined  to  proceed  to  a  present- 
ment. The  opinions  and  assertions  of  these  complainants  and  their 
coadjutors  and  abettors,  together  with  what  we  ourselves  have 
picked  up  and  heard,  but  have  not  had  proved,  weigh  far  more 
with  us  than  any  representation  you,  as  the  constituted  authority 
of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  have  made  or  can  make  ;  and  hav- 
ing, by  our  construction  of  the  letter  of  the  Canon,  the  power,  we 
will  exercise  the  same,  disregard  your  solemn  official  decision,  and 
proceed  to  arraign  as  an  offender  your  chief  pastor,  whom  you  have 
pronounced  "blameless  ?"  "What  right  have  any  three  Bishops,  thus 
to  go  behind  the  record  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Diocese  of  New 
Jersey,  and  virtually  pronounce  the  Convention  dishonest,  corrupt, 
and  unworthy  of  confidence  ?     1  hold  they  have  no  right.     If  the 


(    128    ) 

Presenting  Bishops  have  such  right,  what  is  there  to  prevent  three 
other  Bishops  who,  upon  the  representation  of  irresponsible  indi- 
viduals, may  be  dissatisfied  with  the  result  of  the  investigation  of 
the  Convention,  in  whole  or  in  part,  from  dissenting  from  its  decis- 
ion, and  beginning  a  procedure  against  the  Eespondent,  on  account 
of  the  whole,  or  the  part,  to  which  they  may  take  exception  ?  Or 
what  is  to  prevent  three  more ;  and  thus  the  Eespondent  be  har- 
assed, and  his  Diocese  kept  disturbed  and  agitated,  for  an  indefinite 
period  ?  There  must  be  an  end  to  such  procedure  some  where  and 
at  some  time.  Charity  demands  it.  Justice  demands  it.  The 
peace  and  prosperity  of  the  Church  demand  it.  The  claims  of  our 
common  Christianity  demand  it.  Where  is  it  to  be  found,  and 
when  ?  I  answer,  in  this  Court,  and  at  this  time,  by  the  passage 
of  the  Eesolutions  before  us. 

But  there  are,  in  my  judgment,  stronger  reasons  still  for  the  pas- 
sage of  these  Eesolutions,  and  they  relate  to  the  true  interpretation 
of  the  Canon,  or  more  strictly,  of  its  1st  Section.  It  is  claimed  that 
the  letter  of  this  1st  Section  gives  to  any  three  Bishops  co-ordinate 
authority  with  the  Convention  of  a  Diocese,  to  present  for  trial  the 
Bishop  of  a  Diocese,  who  may  be  accused  of  crime,  or  immorality, 
or  unsoundness  in  the  faith.  I  hold  and  maintain,  that  it  does  no 
such  thing,  that  it  confers  upon  them  no  authority  whatever,  in 
such  a  case.  The  provision  of  the  Canon,  which  appears  to  give 
such  co-ordinate  authority,  or  any  authority,  to  three  Bishops,  does 
not  relate  to  a  diocesan  Bishop,  but  is  a  provision,  and  the  only  pro- 
vision which  the  Canon  makes,  to  secure  the  trial  of  a  Bishop 
charged  with  serious  offences,  who  has  resigned  his  diocesan  juris- 
diction. The  words  are — after  giving  the  Convention  of  a  Diocese 
authority  to  make  a  Presentment  of  its  own  Bishop  accused  of 
specified  offences,  and  stringently  regulating  the  mode  of  proceed- 
ing— the  words  are :  "  And  it"  (a  presentment)  "  may  also  be  made 
by  any  three  Bishops  of  this  Church ;"  not,  however,  of  a  diocesan 
Bishop,  but  of  a  Bishop  who  has  resigned  his  diocesan  jurisdiction, 
or  who,  as  in  the  case  of  a  Foreign  Missionary  Bishop,  has  no 
diocesan  jurisdiction,  and  no  Convention  to  take  cognizance  of  his 
conduct.  This,  I  think,  is  clearly  determined,  and  the  provision  in 
question  thus  restrained  in  its  application,  by  Section  10th  of  the 
Canon,  which  reads  thus,  "  Any  Bishop  of  this  Church  not  having 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  shall  be  subject  to  presentment,  trial,  and 
sentence,  as  herein  hefore  provided,  but  shall  not  be  included  in  any 
other  provision  of  this  Canon."     Now  what  is  "  herein  hefore  pro- 


(    129    ) 

vided?"  Why,  a  presentment  by  "any  three  Bishops  of  this 
Church ;" — the  provision,  and  the  only  provision  in  the  Canon,  in 
the  case  of  "  a  Bishop  accused  of  offences  not  having  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction."  This  I  hold  to  be  the  true  interpretation,  and  the 
sole  meaning  and  intention  of  this  provision.  It  is  not  an  alterna- 
tive provision.  The  word  is  "and,"  not  "or."  It  is  an  independ- 
ent provision,  restrained  in  its  application  to  a  Bishop  without 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  and  having  no  application  whatever  to  a 
Diocesan  Bishop.  No  co-ordinate  authority  is  given,  nor  was  any 
co-ordinate  authority,  nor  any  authority  whatever,  in  the  case  of  a 
Diocesan  Bishop,  intended  to  be  given.  This,  as  a  member  of  the 
Committee  who  prepared  and  reported  the  Canon  to  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  (where  it  originated,)  and  its  Chairman,  I 
profess  to  know ;  and  my  knowledge  is  confirmed  by  the  recollec- 
tion of  several  of  my  colleagues  in  the  Committee,  whom  I  have 
recentl3''  consulted.  And  as  cotemporary  interpretation  is  resorted 
to  and  allowed  weight,  in  questions  relating  to  the  true  meaning 
and  intention  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  laws 
dependent  thereupon,  as  I  am  informed  on  high  legal  authority,  it 
ought  to  have  weight,  corroborative  at  least,  in  determining  the  true 
interpretation  and  meaning  of  this  provision  of  the  Canon.  At  any 
rate,  it  is  irresistible  in  deciding  my  judgment  in  the  premises. 

And  to  the  rebutting  assertion,  in  favour  of  the  interpretation 
which  has  heretofore  prevailed,  and  upon  which,  the  Presentment 
before  us  has  been  made,  viz.,  that  this  provision  existed  in  the 
previous  Canon  of  18-il — "  of  the  trial  of  a  Bishop" — I  answer,  this 
is  admitted  so  far  as  the  naming  of  three  Bishops  goes.  But  the 
phraseology  employed  is  quite  different  from  that  of  the  present 
Canon,  and  reads  thus  : — "  He  may  also  be  presented  to  the  Bishops 
by  any  three  Bishops ;"  vague  and  indefinite  phraseology,  which 
might  be  construed  to  give  authority  to  any  three  Bishops  of  the 
Church  of  England  or  its  colonies,  equally  with  those  of  our  own 
branch  of  the  Church  ;  and  at  the  same  time  susceptible  of  the  inter- 
pretation of  an  alternative  provision,  conferring  co-ordinate  authority 
on  any  three  Bishops,  with  the  Convention  of  a  Diocese.  On  this 
account,  as  well  as  on  others,  the  Canon  was  deemed  seriously 
defective  by  the  Committee  on  Canons  of  1844,  and  the  existing  pro- 
vision substituted: — a  provision  more  definite  in  its  terms — the 
words  "  of  this  Church,"  being  added ;  and  designed,  as  I  have  stated, 
and  as  is  proved  by  the  10th  Section  of  the  Canon,  to  meet  the  case 
of  a  Bishop  not  having  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction — a  case  known 


(    130    ) 

by  the  Committee  to  be  about  to  exist,  and  whicli,  immediately 
after  the  passage  of  this  Canon,  and  of  Canon  IV.  of  18M — repealed 
in  1850,  and  another  substituted — did  exist,  and  continues  to  exist. 

Nor,  in  reply  to  all  this,  is  it  to  be  taken  and  pleaded  as  a 
precedent,  authoritative  and  binding  upon  this  Court,  that  the 
interpretation  contended  for  by  the  Presenting  Bishops,  and  upon 
which  they  have  acted,  was  not  denied,  nor  any  objection  made 
thereto  in  a  previous  trial  under  the  existing  Canon.  In  that 
memorable  instance,  this  point  was  not  mooted.  The  Eespondent 
waived  all  exceptions,  and  pleaded  without  any  demur  to  the  Pre- 
sentment. There  was,  therefore,  no  decision,  and  consequently 
there  is  no  precedent. 

But  further,  these  Resolutions,  in  my  judgment,  ought  to  pass, 
because  they  involve  a  fundamental  principle  in  our  ecclesiastical 
organization,  the  independence  of  the  several  dioceses  composing 
the  Ecclesiasticdl  Union,  whith  constitutes  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  these  United  States.  It  is  a  principle  which  I  hold  to  be 
inherent  in  a  diocesan  organization,  sanctioned  by  the  teaching  and 
usage  of  the  Church  Catholic,  "through  the  ages  all  along,"  and 
clearly  recognised  and  virtually  asserted  in  the  lYth  Article  of  "  the 
Constitution  of  our  Ecclesiastical  Government,^ ^'^  which  declares  that, 
"  Every  Bishop  of  this  Church  shall  confine  the  exercise  of  his 
Episcopal  office  to  his  proper  diocese,  unless  requested  to  ordain,  or 
confirm,  or  perform  any  other  act  of  his  Episcopal  office  by  any 
Church  destitute  of  a  Bishop." 

This  principle  appears  to  me,  to  have  been  lost  sight  of  in  the 
procedure  of  the  Presenting  Bishops  in  the  case  before  us,  both  in 
their  preliminary  and  subsequent  action,  particularly  the  former ; 
and  the  sovereignty  and  independence  of  the  Diocese  of  New 
Jersey  thereby  seriously  invaded.  For,  upon  the  interpretation 
heretofore  given  to  the  Canon,  that  is,  to  the  provision  of  the  1st 
Section,  no  authority  is  given  to  any  three  Bishops  of  this  Church 
to  enter  the  diocese  of  another  Bishop,  and  go  from  place  to  place, 
and  from  house  to  house,  without  the  consent  of  the  Convention  of 
the  Diocese,  or  its  ecclesiastical  authority,  in  search  of  evidence  to 
convict  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  offences  with  which  he  may  be 
charged,  whether  it  be  to  determine  the  question  of  making  a  pre- 
sentment against  him,  or  to  sustain  such  presentment  when  it  is 
made.  The  IVth  Article  of  the  Constitution  clearly  forbids  such  a 
procedure.     And  in  my  judgment,  it  as  clearly  forbids  the  present- 

*  Vide  Preamble  to  the  original  Constitution  adopted  in  1785 — Bioren's  Edition. 


(    131     ) 

ment  of  a  Diocesan  Bishop  bj  any  three  Bishops ;  for  it  restricts  the 
performance  of  any  Episcopal  act  whatever  by  the  Bishop  of  another 
diocese,  to  a  Church  destitute  of  a  Bishop,  that  is,  of  a  diocese  without 
a  Bishop ;  and  then  only  at  the  request  of  such  Church  or  Diocese. 

The  principle  of  Diocesan  independence  which  these  llesolutions 
assert,  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  preservation  of  the  peace 
of  the  Church,  and  its  character  and  position  as  a  reformed  Prot- 
estant branch  of  the  One,  Iloly,  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  of 
Christ  our  Lord.  And  its  conservation,  in  opposition  to  the  con- 
solidation and  centralization  of  ecclesiastical  power  in  a  General 
Church,  by  which  is  meant  our  General  Convention,  now,  and  for 
some  years  past,  claimed  and  attempted  to  be  acted  upon,  is  demanded 
by  every  consideration  of  the  true  interests  of  our  ecclesiastical 
organization,  and  the  welfare,  the  increase,  and  the  perpetuity  of 
our  communion  in  this  country.  If  this  growing  notion  of  a  con- 
solidated Church,  and  the  centralization  of  power  in  the  General 
Convention,  is  not  arrested,  it  will  lead  to  serious,  alarming,  and 
lasting  evils. 

The  Diocese  of  New  Jersey — and  the  remarks  apply  to  every 
other  Diocese  in  our  Ecclesiastical  Union,  and  is  the  deep  concern 
of  each  and  all — this  Diocese  was  originally  independent,  purely 
and  entirely  so.  It  was  optional  with  it  to  enter  into,  or  not  to  enter 
into,  the  Ecclesiastical  Union  which  constitutes  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  these  United  States.  It  chose  to  enter  into  such 
Union,  reserving  to  itself  certain  indefeasible  rights,  and  having 
such  rights  as  it  surrendered,  in  order  to  promote  and  perfect  the 
object  of  the  Union,  secured  to  it  by  the  Constitution  of  the  Union. 
Among  these  was  the  independent  control  of  its  own  internal  affairs, 
and  of  all  measures  and  proceedings  thereto  pertaining ;  and  admit- 
ting no  interference  or  control  on  the  part  of  the  General  Conven- 
tion, the  representative  embodiment  of  the  Union,  save  in  cases 
specifically  provided  by  canonical  enactment,  to  which  its  assent  had 
been  yielded  in  the  way  prescribed  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
Union.  Now,  in  the  procedure  of  the  Presenting  Bishops,  there 
has  been,  as  it  appears  to  me,  I  do  not  say  an  intentional,  yet  a 
manifest  invasion  of  this  independence,  and  a  departure  from  the 
spirit,  if  not  the  letter,  of  the  IVth  Article  of  the  Constitution, 
which  secures  that  independence.  In  entering  into  the  Diocese  of 
New  Jersey,  without  the  request  or  consent  of  the  Convention 
representing  the  Diocese,  to  perform  no  legitimate  Episcopal  act, 
but  to  seek  for  e\'idence  supposed  to  bear  against  the  Bishop  of  the 


(    132    ) 

Diocese,  accused  of  certain  offences,  not  by  the  Convention,  but  by 
four  irresponsible  individuals  in  the  Diocese,  tliey  have  certainly 
acted  in  contravention  of  this  Article  of  the  Constitution,  and  have 
seriously  invaded  the  rightful  independence  of  a  Diocese  which  has 
a  Bishop.  And  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  have  a  right  to  fall 
back  on  the  independence  secured  to  them  by  the  Constitution,  and 
by  the  Canon  too,  in  the  particular  case  under  consideration,  and 
act  in  the  premises  as  shall  seem  to  them  best  and  proper,  and  their 
action  and  decision  be  deemed  and  taken  as  final.  The  only  plea 
of  authority  for  the  Presenting  Bishops,  is  the  authority  of  the 
General  Convention,  supposed  to  be  conferred  in  the  provision  be- 
fore referred  to,  in  the  1st  Section  of  Canon  III.  of  18-i4,  which  I 
hold  to  be,  and  trust  I  have  shown  to  be,  no  authority  at  all,  in  the 
true  interpretation  and  intention  of  such  provision.  And  as  to  the 
plea  of  the  inherent  right  of  Bishops  to  guard  the  purity  of  their  fel- 
low Bishops,  make  themselves,  at  their  discretion,  "rulers  and  judges 
over  their  brethren"  in  the  Episcopate,  and  minister  discipline,  not 
as  their  consecration  vow  defines  it,  "  so  that  they  forget  not  mercy," 
but  as  they  please,  and  with  the  utmost  rigour,  if  they  so  please — this 
is  a  dangerous  assumption  of  authority,  which  no  teaching  nor  usage 
of  the  Church  Catholic,  in  its  primitive  and  pure  condition,  in  any 
way  sanctions.  Such  an  assumption,  commencing  with  a  pretence 
of  interposing  only  fraternal  counsel  and  advice,  and  proceeding 
soon  to  a  claim  of  interference  and  supremacy  in  discipline,  and 
then  of  doctrine,  was  the  germinating  action,  the  starting  point  of  the 
Papal  usurpation,  the  insidious  beginning  of  that  colossal,  consolida- 
ted, ecclesiastical  domination  which  for  many  centuries  enthralled  the 
Christian  world,  and,  if  it  could,  would  enthral  it  again  and  for  ever. 
It  is  an  assumption,  fruitful  in  evil,  and  ought  to  be  resisted  in  its 
first  budding  forth.  The  Eesolutions  before  the  Court  make  such 
resistance,  assert  the  principle  of  the  independence  of  a  Diocese,  in 
opposition  to  interference  of  any  kind  vv^ith  its  own  affairs  from  an 
extraneous  source,  though  apparently  clothed  with  quasi  official 
authority ;  and  for  this  reason,  if  for  nothing  else,  for  the  purpose 
of  opposing  a  conceit  and  a  claim  so  antagonistical  to  the  expressed 
design  of  our  "  Ecclesiastical  Union,"  so  fraught  with  mischief  in 
its  necessary  and  readily  anticipated  consequences,  and  so  directly 
conflicting  with  the  Constitutional  provision,  which  secures  the 
sovereignty  and  independence  of  each  and  every  Diocese  composing 
our  Union,  the  Resolutions  are  eminently  demanded  by  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  before  us,  and  ought  to  pass ;  and  under  a  solemn 


(    133    ) 

conviction  of  duty  and  of  my  responsibility  as  a  Bishop  in  the 
Church  of  God,  I  give  my  vote  in  the  affirmative. 

George  Upfold, 

Bishop  of  Indiana. 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  MISSISSIPPI. 

I  AM  one  of  those  who  are  disposed  to  hold  the  Clergy  to  a 
strict  account.  And  I  am  of  opinion  that  when  once  a  Bishop  has 
been  convicted  of  wilful  impurity  or  dishonesty,  he  should  be 
lastingly  deprived  of  his  high  and  holy  office.  Under  these  solemn 
convictions  I  have  come  nearly  two  thousand  five  hundred  miles 
to  be  present  on  this  occasion.  My  purpose  in  coming  was  twofold 
— first,  to  see  that  a  brother  Bishop  who,  u]3  to  the  present  hour, 
has  stood  before  the  world  as  an  honourable,  noble-spirited,  fearless 
and  indefatigable  son  of  the  Church,  should  not  be  unjustly  con- 
demned ;  and,  secondly,  to  see  that  our  Dear  Mother  the  Church 
should  be  duly  avenged  on  that  son,  if  he  had  wantonly  wronged 
her. 

With  these  views  I  took  my  seat  in  this  Court ;  and  I  hoped 
that,  without  delay,  we  would  enter  upon  the  painful  business 
which  had  brought  us  together.  I  wished  the  trial  begun  and 
ended,  for  the  sake  of  all  concerned — for  the  interests  of  truth  and 
honesty — for  a  warning  to  the  Clergy  of  every  degree — for  the 
quieting  of  the  public  mind — for  the  peace  of  the  Church — for  the 
purpose  of  enabling  the  presenting  Bishops,  who  have,  from  the 
best  of  motives,  as  I  believe,  undertaken  their  painful  and  ungra- 
cious dut^^,  to  show  their  zeal  for  the  purity  of  their  own  Order, — 
but  especially  for  the  sake  of  the  accused,  in  whose  behalf  I  not 
only  prayed,  but  expected,  a  safe  and  honourable  deliverance. 

But  instead  of  entering  at  once  upon  the  trial,  a  new  and  im- 
portant turn  has  been  given  to  our  proceedings  by  the  solemn 
request  and  claim  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  that  we  will 
forbear  all  further  action,  on  the  ground  that  that  Diocese  has 
already  taken  all  necessary  canonical  action  in  the  premises,  and 
that  she  has  solemnly  pledged  herself  faithfully  and  speedily  to 
inquire  into  any  further  charges  that  remain  unanswered  against 
her   Bishop.     Into   the    particulars   of   the    statements   and    the 


(    131    ) 

argument  made  by  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  I  will  not  now 
enter,  inasmuch  as  tbey  are  familiar  to  every  member  of  the  Court ; 
but  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that,  coming,  as  they  do,  from  an 
independent  Diocese — a  fully  constituted  Church  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  a  Diocese  hitherto  untainted  and  without  reproach — we  are 
bound  not  only  to  give  them  our  most  respectful  attention,  but  to 
treat  her  judgment  and  action  in  the  premises  with  full  faith  and 
confidence. 

Passing  by,  then,  many  minor  objections  that  might,  and  have 
been  raised  to  the  further  proceedings  of  this  Court,  I  will  now,  in 
the  fear  of  Him  who  will  one  day  sit  in  judgment  on  me  and  all 
mankind,  give  this  my  firm,  serious  and  heaven-sought  Opinion. 

That  in  view  of  the  manifold  and  acknowledged  defects  in  the 
Canon,  (III.  of  1844,)  under  the  authority  of  which  we  are  now 
assembled,  a  canon  indefinite  in  its  language,  incomplete  in  its 
provisions,  and  harsh  in  its  general  spirit  and  character,  which 
leaves  it  doubtful  whether  the  task  of  presenting  a  Bishop  should 
begin  unthin  or  without  his  Diocese,  which  gives  to  the  accused  no 
right  of  challenge,  which  makes  him  liable  to  the  severest  pun- 
ishment, even  to  degradation,  by  the  vote  of  a  bare  majority  of 
such  of  his  brethren  as  may  be  able  or  willing  to  attend,  and 
which  allows  him  no  right  of  appeal ;  and  which,  for  these  reasons, 
is,  in  the  opinion  of  most  of  this  Court,  an  unsafe  rule  of  action  : — 

In  view  of  the  unfortunate  and  extra-legal  postponement  of  the 
trial  of  the  accused,  called  for  under  the  first  Presentment,  of  the 
consequent  virtual  abandonment  of  that  Presentment,  and  of  the 
fiict  that  the  second  Presentment  is  dated  eight  days  after  the  Report 
of  the  Committee  appointed  by  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  to 
investigate  the  charges  against  their  Bisho]?,  which  Eeport  fully 
exculpates  him  from  all  those  charges : — 

In  view  of  the  admitted  right  of  a  Diocese,  co-equally  and 
concurrently  with  any  three  Bishops,  to  present  its  own  Bishop, 
and  of  the  consideration  that  a  Diocese  should  be  supposed  not 
only  to  have  the  best  opportunity  of  knowing  the  character  and 
conduct  of  their  Bishop,  but  to  be  most  keenly  alive  to  his  honour 
as  involving  their  own : — 

In  view  of  the  judgment  of  many  of  this  Court,  and  also  of  the 
Presenting  Bishops  themselves,  that  "  it  is  only  when  a  Diocesan 
Convention  refuses  to  institute  inquiry,  or  neglects  to  do  it  for  too 
long  a  period,  that  other  Bishops  can  be  expected  to  interfere :" — 

In  view  of  the  prompt  action  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  as 


(    135    ) 

soon  as  charges  were  preferred  in  a  formal  and  definite  shape,  of 
their  having  thereupon  made  as  full  and  honest  an  investigation  of 
those  charges  as  the  authors  of  them  and  their  witnesses  would 
allow  them  to  make,  and  of  the  express  and  solemn  pledge  of  the 
Diocese  to  go  on  to  the  end  with  the  investigation  of  the  three 
charges  subsequently  preferred  : — 

In  view  of  the  canonical  right  of  each  Diocese  to  determine  for 
itself  the  question  of  Presentment  or  no  Presentment  on  charges 
brought  against  its  Bishop,  and  of  the  repeatedly  expressed  confi- 
dence of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  in  the  purity  and  integrity  of 
its  Bishop: — 

In  view  of  the  repeated  and  solemn  declaration  of  our  accused 
brother,  that  he  is  now  ready,  and  will  always  hold  himself  ready, 
to  come  to  trial  before  a  Court  canonically  empowered  to  try  him : — 

In  view  of  the  power  of  the  Presenting  Bishops  to  renew  the 
Presentment,  even  after  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  shall  have 
completed  its  investigation  : — 

In  view  of  the  serious  and  respectful  Appeal  and  claim  of  the 
Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  and  of  the  necessity  of  maintaining  at  all 
times  just  and  liberal  relations  between  the  several  Dioceses  and 
the  General  Church  : — 

In  view  of  the  many  evils  that  result  to  the  Church  from  public 
trials,  as  well  as  the  lasting  injury  done  to  the  accused,  even 
though  acquitted: — 

In  view  of  one  and  all  of  these  reasons,  I  deem  it  unwise  and 
inexpedient  to  proceed  any  further  with  the  Presentment  before 
us.  And  I  would  recommend  that  we  forbear  all  further  action 
until  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey,  which  is  summoned  to  meet 
on  the  27th  inst.,  shall  have  completed  its  investigation  of  all  the 
charges  alleged  in  both  Presentments. 

W.  M.  Greex, 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Mississij^pi. 


(    136    ) 


OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  FLORIDA. 

Having  taken  no  part  in  the  discussion  pending  the  passage  of 
Bishop  Up  fold's  Eesolutions,  it  may  be  expected  that  I  will  give 
mj  reasons  for  voting  in  the  affirmative.   I  shall  state  them  briefly. 

It  is  a  settled  principle  in  law,  that  two  indictments,  charging  an 
individual  with  similar  offences,  cannot  be  entertained  at  the  same 
time ;  and  that  the  indictment  bearing  priority  of  date  is  entitled 
to  precedence.  The  members  of  this  Court  have  each  in  possession 
two  presentments — ^both  emanating  from  the  same  source.  That 
the  first  (in  point  of  date)  has  been  withdrawn,  we  have  no  evi- 
dence ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  distinctly  avowed  by  one  of  the  Pre- 
senters, that  it  has  not  been  abandoned,  but  is  retained  for  the 
purpose  of  falling  back  upon,  in  the  event  that  any  plea  should  be 
urged  against  the  reception  of  what  is  called  the  neiu  presentment. 
In  view  of  this  statement,  my  opinion  is,  that  it  is  not  competent 
in  this  Court  to  proceed  to  the  trial  of  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey 
at  this  time. 

Again,  Canon  III,  of  18-i4  secures  to  the  Diocese  to  which  an 
accused  Bishop  belongs,  the  right  to  make  presentment,  which 
power  conferred  involves  the  authority  to  make  every  necessary 
investigation  into  the  truth  of  the  charges  preferred.  This  right, 
we  are  informed,  has  been  exercised  by  a  legitimate  tribunal — the 
Convention  of  New  Jersey.  It  is  with  that  body  to  determine  for 
itself  the  question  of  presentment  or  no  presentment.  In  view  of 
the  fact,  that  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  has  given  to  the  alle- 
gations brought  against  its  Bishop  a  patient,  diligent  and  full 
examination,  and  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote  of  both  Orders 
declared,  that  they  "  find  no  fault  in  this  man  touching  those  things 
whereof  he  is  accused,"  I  give  it  further,  as  my  opinion,  that  any 
action  of  this  Court  in  the  premises  is  uncalled  for  and  inexpedient. 
For  these  reasons,  I  have  voted  in  the  affirmative. 

Fraxcis  H.  Eutledge, 

BisJioj)  of  Florida. 


;       BA5960.Db3A7 
;(      The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  the 

■{  Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00050  9101 


3)!!;)  «>^>W)ffi  , 


i'^)(?p;'j!;;<):):;.!;\ 


):):?l?;5;!:!;!;);;:);!i!n;j;H 


